IRRADIATED FOODS

Fifth Edition

Revised and updated by

Paisan Loaharanu, M.S.

International Consultant, Former Head,
Food and Environmental Protection Section
Joint FAO/IAEA Division, Vienna, Austria

for the AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH

First Edition, October 1982

Second Edition (revised and updated), July 1985
Third Edition (revised and updated), December 1988
Fourth Edition (revised and updated), March 1996

Project Coordinator:
Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.
Director of Nutrition

Art Director:
Yelena Ponirovskaya

May 2003

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH

1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10023-5860
Tel. (212) 362-7044 • Fax (212) 362-4919
URLs: http://www.acsh.org • http://www.HealthFactsAndFears.com
E-mail: acsh@acsh.org
ACSH GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE COMMENTS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS, WHO
REVIEWED THIS PUBLICATION.

Joseph Borzelleca, Ph.D. Manfred Kroger, Ph.D.

Medical College of Virginia Pennsylvania State University
Christine M. Bruhn, Ph.D. Lillian Langseth, Dr.P.H.
University of California, Davis Palisades, New York
Elwood F. Caldwell, Ph.D., M.B.A. Frank C. Lu, M.D., BCFE
University of Minnesota Miami, Florida
Bruce M. Chassy, Ph.D. Daryl Lund, Ph.D.
Biotechnology Center University of Wisconsin
Urbana, Illinois
Howard D. Maccabee, Ph.D., M.D.
Dean O. Cliver, Ph.D. Radiation Oncology Center
University of California, Davis Walnut Creek, California
Bernard L. Cohen, D.Sc. James D. McKean, D.V.M., J.D.
University of Pittsburgh Iowa State University
Daniel F. Farkas, Ph.D., M.S., P.E. Gilbert L. Ross, M.D.
Oregon State University American Council on Science and Health
F.J. Francis, Ph.D. Gary C. Smith, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst Colorado State University
Charles O. Gallina, Ph.D. James H. Steele,.D.V.M., M.P.H.
Springfield, Illinois University of Texas
Renee M. Goodrich, Ph.D. Fredric M.Steinberg, M.D.
University of Florida England, United Kingdom
Richard A. Greenberg, Ph.D. James E. Tillotson, Ph.D, MBA
Hinsdale, Illinois Tufts University
Clark W. Heath, Jr., Ph.D. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
American Cancer Society American Council on Science and Health
David M. Klurfeld, Ph.D.
Wayne State University

ACSH accepts unrestricted grants on the condition that it is solely responsible for the conduct of
its research and the dissemination of its work to the public. The organization does not perform pro-
prietary research, nor does it accept support from individual corporations for specific research proj-
ects. All contributions to ACSH—a publicly funded organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code—are tax deductible.
Individual copies of this report are available at a cost of $5.00. Reduced prices for 10 or more
copies are available upon request.
Copyright © 2003 by American Council on Science and Health, Inc.
This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by mimeograph or any other means, without
permission.
 Tab le of Conte n ts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
INTRODUCTION 7
BACKGROUND 8
What is food irradiation? 8
What types of radiation energy are used for
treating foods? 8
What can irradiation do? 9
EFFECTS OF IRRADIATION ON FOODS 14
Is irradiation the same thing as cooking in
a microwave oven? 14
Does irradiation make food radioactive? 15
Does irradiation generate radioactive wastes? 15
Effects on microorganisms in foods 15
Effects on nutrients in foods 16
Effects on sensory quality of foods 17
SAFETY OF IRRADIATED FOODS 18
Are irradiated foods safe to eat? 18
Determining the safety of irradiated foods 19
Safety of food irradiation facilities 22
LEGALAND REGULATORY ASPECTS
OF FOOD IRRADIATION 25
International standards and agreements governing
trade in food and agricultural commodities 25
What is the legal status of food irradiation
in the United States? 28
CURRENT AND POTENTIALAPPLICATIONS 29
Sanitary treatment 29
Phytosanitary treatment 33
Quality enhancement 34
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED FOODS 35
ISSUES AFFECTING TRADE IN IRRADIATED FOODS 38
CONCLUSIONS 41
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING 42
 Tab les and app e n d i x e s
Table 1: USES OF VARIOUS DOSES OF IRRADIATION
FOR FOOD SAFETY AND PRESERVATION 10
Table 2. AMERICAN STORES SELLING IRRADIATED
FOODS IN SOME LOCATIONS 37
Appendix I. SOME TERMS FREQUENTLY USED IN
DISCUSSIONS OF FOOD IRRADIATION 44
Appendix II. FOOD IRRADIATION: SOME MAJOR
MILESTONES 45
Appendix III. RADURA: INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL FOR
IRRADIATION 47
Appendix IV. FOOD IRRADIATION: MAJOR
REGULATORY APPROVALS IN NORTH AMERICA 48
Appendix V. DIAGRAMS OF IRRADIATION FACILITIES 50
E x ec u tive Summary
• An overwhelming body of scientific data from around the world
indicates that irradiated food is safe, nutritious and wholesome.
Health authorities worldwide have based their approvals of food
irradiation on the results of sound scientific research. When com-
bined with proper hygienic practices in handling, processing, stor-
age and distribution, irradiation increases the safety profile of a
variety of foods.
• The safety of food irradiation has been studied more extensively
than that of any other food preservation process, including canning,
freezing, dehydration and chemical additives. As is true of other
food processes, irradiation can lead to chemical changes in food.
Compounds called radiolytic products (compounds formed because
of action by radiation), are formed that are similar to thermolytic
products in heat treatment of foods. None of these radiolytic prod-
ucts, in the amounts found in irradiated foods, has been demonstrat-
ed to be toxic by any modern toxicological methods.
• As of March 2003, food irradiation has been approved by more than
50 countries. This food preservation process has been applied suc-
cessfully for several types of food in more than 30 countries,
including such technologically advanced countries as Canada,
France, Japan, The Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa and the
United States.
• The U.S. FDA has approved the use of irradiation for a number of
foods and purposes, including antimicrobial treatments for spices
and dried vegetable seasonings (1983), destroying Trichinella in
pork (1985), insect disinfestations and shelf-life extension of foods
of plant origin (1986), and pathogenic bacteria control in poultry
meat (1990), red meat (1997), shell eggs, and sprouting seeds
(2000). The FDA is currently evaluating petitions for destroying
harmful bacteria in ready-to-eat foods (e.g., deli meats) and seafood
such as oysters and clams.
• Recent major food recalls have heightened awareness of the risks of
food-borne pathogens and have highlighted the utility of irradiation
as a sanitary treatment to ensure the microbiological safety of foods.
It is increasingly accepted and applied in several countries. In the
USA, irradiated ground beef was introduced into commercial chan-
nels in early 2000 following approval by the FDA in 1997 and the
USDA Food Safety Inspection Service in 1999. The number of

5
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
supermarkets carrying this product has increased from 84 in May
2000 to over 7,000 in March 2003.
• Any irradiated food sold as such must be labeled with a statement
such as “Treated by Irradiation” or “Treated by Ionizing Radiation.”
The purpose of the treatment may be displayed on the label as long
as it is truthful and not misleading.
• Currently, several major meat processing companies have incorpo-
rated irradiation into their processing procedures to ensure the
microbiological safety of their products. A major fast food restau-
rant chain and some other chain restaurants are beginning to offer
irradiated meat on their menus. Irradiation provides an additional
layer of product safety to protect the health of consumers.
• The United States Department of Agriculture estimates that the
American consumer will receive approximately $2 in benefits such
as reduced spoilage and less illness for each $1 spent on food irra-
diation.
• In 2000, electron beam and X-ray machines were introduced into
the American food processing system. Previously, only cobalt-60
irradiators had been used for food irradiation.
• When electron beam or X-ray machines are used, no radioactive
isotopes are involved. When a cobalt-60 source is used, food irradi-
ation facilities and transport of radioactive source must meet strin-
gent federal and state regulations. Such irradiators have been in use
for many years for sterilization of a number of medical devices and
consumer and other products. The industry has an excellent safety
record.
• A unique characteristic of irradiation as a food process is that it can
be used as a sanitary treatment to ensure microbiological safety of
food and as a phytosanitary treatment to prevent the introduction of
exotic pests in or on fresh produce before they enter the United
States. The approval by Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) of such phytosanitary irradiation should pave the way for
a wide variety of tropical and sub-tropical fruits to enter the U.S.
market, and will provide consumers with a wide variety of fresh
and nutritious food.
• The American Council on Science and Health supports food irradia-
tion as a science-based technology that has been proven to be safe
and effective. ACSH supports informational—not warning—label-
ing requirements for irradiated food as approved by the FDA. The
use of irradiation provides American consumers with an even wider
choice of safe, high-quality food.

6
I n tr od u cti o n
Why irradiate foods?
One reason is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) estimate that some 5,000 deaths and 76 million illnesses a year
in the U.S. occur due to food-borne illnesses—that toll could be sub-
stantially reduced by irradiation.
Foods may be contaminated naturally during any stage of produc-
tion or consumption (from farm to fork). The contamination may be in
the form of microbes—including those that cause food spoilage or dis-
eases in humans—as well as insect infestations that cause food spoilage
and destruction. Some foods are seasonal and highly perishable, while
others are not allowed to enter the United States because they may har-
bor pests and diseases
that cause damage to
local agriculture or ill- The Centers for Disease Control
ness in humans. and Prevention (CDC) estimate
For centuries, great that some 5,000 deaths and 76
effort has been devoted million illnesses a year in the U.S.
to finding ways of pre- occur due to food-borne illnesses—
serving food and pro- that toll could be substantially
tecting it from microor- reduced by irradiation.
ganisms, insects and
other pests. Drying was
most likely one of the first techniques developed. Heating, fermentation
(acid or alcohol preservation), salting and smoking also have long histo-
ries of use in food preservation. Later techniques include the use of
preservatives other than salt, heat pasteurization, canning, freezing,
refrigeration, ultrahigh hydrostatic pressure, electrical conductivity heat-
ing, pulsed electrical fields and crop-protecting chemicals. All have
played a role in improving the quality, quantity and safety of our food
supply, protecting it against destruction, microbial contamination and
spoilage.
Irradiation, a relatively new technology to enhance food safety,
quality and trade, has joined this arsenal of food protection methods
rather recently. Irradiation, being a cold process, can be used to inacti-
vate spoilage and disease-causing (pathogenic) bacteria in solid foods
such as meat, poultry, seafood, and spices. It can also kill insect eggs
and larvae in fresh fruits and vegetables without changing the foods’
quality or sensory attributes. Its ability to inactivate pathogenic bacteria

7
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
in frozen food is unique. Since irradiation is a cold pasteurization
process, foods remain in the same state after irradiation as before, i.e.
frozen foods stay frozen, raw foods remain raw, and volatile aromatic
substances are retained.
The increasing awareness of food-borne disease outbreaks, as well
as major food recalls to meet strict sanitary standards in the United
States, has resulted in an increasing recognition and a wider use of irra-
diation as a sanitary treatment to destroy pathogenic bacteria such as
Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ground beef. Its role as an insect control
method to meet strict quarantine requirements in the U.S., especially for
tropical fruits from Hawaii, is also growing. Irradiation has routinely
been used to meet microbiological standards for spices and dried veg-
etable seasonings in the U.S. and many other countries in the past two
decades.
To provide American consumers with information on the safety and
benefits of food irradiation, the American Council on Science and Health
(ACSH) has prepared this booklet to explain irradiation, and to answer
some common questions about this relatively new food technology.

BAC K GR O U N D
What Is Food Irradiation?
Food irradiation is the treatment of foods by exposing them to ioniz-
ing radiation, also called ionizing energy, to achieve certain technical
objectives. For example, irradiation can kill harmful bacteria and other
organisms in meat, poultry, and seafood, disinfest spices, extend shelf-
life of fresh fruits and vegetables, and control sprouting of tubers and
bulbs such as potatoes and onions. It is a safe process that has been
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and over 50
other national food control authorities for many types of foods.
Irradiation may be referred to as a “cold pasteurization” process, as it
does not significantly raise the temperature of the treated foods. As with
other microbial inactivation processes, such as heat pasteurization, irra-
diation cannot reverse the spoilage of food. Thus, safe food handling and
good manufacturing practices are required for irradiated food just as for
other foods if consumers are to enjoy the benefit of this technology.

What Types of Radiation Energy Are Used for Treating

Foods?
The radiation energy used to treat foods is called “ionizing radia-
tion” because it produces ions—electrically charged particles. Ionizing

8
radiation—including X-rays, gamma rays and beams of high-energy
electrons produced by electron accelerators—has a higher energy than
non-ionizing radiation such as visible light, television and radio-waves
and microwaves.
Two types of radiation sources are commonly used for food treat-
ment. The first is a tightly sealed metal container of radioactive ele-
ments—cobalt 60 or cesium 137—that produce gamma rays. The rays
are directed onto the food being irradiated, but the food itself never
comes into contact with the cobalt or cesium source. The second type of
radiation source is a machine that produces either X-rays or high-energy
electrons. Because of the physical characteristics of these sources, no
radioactivity can be
induced in food thus
treated, no matter how Irradiation has a number of uses
much energy (dose) is in food processing, most of
absorbed by the food or which improve the safety and qual-
how long the food is ity or prolong the useful life of foods.
irradiated.

What Can Irradiation Do?

Irradiation has a number of uses in food processing, most of which
improve the safety and quality or prolong the useful life of foods.
Different doses of radiation are used for different purposes, as is shown
in Table 1 (page 10).

The major applications of irradiation are summarized below.

Radiation Pasteurization (Sanitary Treatment)

Food-borne illnesses take a heavy toll on the economy and produc-
tivity of populations in most countries. In the United States, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that food-borne
diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses; 325,000 hospitaliza-
tions and 5,000 deaths each year or approximately 100 deaths per week.
Such microorganisms as E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Salmonella,
Listeria, Vibrio and Toxoplasma are responsible for 1,500 deaths annu-
ally.
The most important public health benefit of food irradiation is its
ability to destroy pathogenic (disease causing) organisms in food.
Consumers are familiar with heat pasteurization of liquid foods like
milk and juices, which effectively eliminates spoilage and pathogenic
bacteria, inactivates spoilage enzymes, and extends shelf-life without

9

Table 1. Uses of Various Doses of Irrad i ati o n
for Fo od Safety and Pr e s e r vati o n
Purpose
Low Dose (up to 1 kGy)
(a) Inhibition of sprouting
(b) Insect disinfestation
(including quarantine treat-
ment)
(c) Parasite disinfection
(d) Delay of ripening
Medium Dose (1-10 kGy)
(a) Extension of shelf-life
(b) Inactivation of spoilage
and pathogenic bacteria
(c) Improving technical
properties of foods
High Dose (above 10 kGy)
(a) Industrial sterilization
(in combination with mild
heat)
(b) Decontamination of cer- 10-50
tain food additives and
ingredients
* kGy (kilogray). For more information on the units used to measure radiation, see
Appendix I.
10
I r rad i ated Fo od s
Effective Dose Products
Range (kGy*)
0.06-0.20 Potatoes, onions, garlic, gin-
ger root, chestnut, etc.
0.15-1.0 Cereals and legumes, fresh
and dried fruits, dried fish
and meat, etc.
0.3-1.0 Fresh pork, freshwater fish,
fresh fruits.
0.5-1.0 Fresh fruits.
1.0-3.0 Raw fish and seafood, fruits
and vegetables.
1.0-7.0 Raw and frozen seafood,
meat and poultry, spices and
dried vegetable seasonings.
3.0-7.0 Increasing juice yield
(grapes), reducing cooking
time (dehydrated vegeta-
bles)
30-50 Meat, poultry, seafood,
sausages, prepared meals,
hospital diets, etc.
Spices, enzyme prepara-
tions, natural gum, gel, etc.
significantly altering taste and nutritional value. Irradiation can perform
the same protective functions for solid foods by decreasing significantly
the number of microorganisms in foods without causing significant
changes in their flavor and aroma. It is the only process that can do so
effectively in raw and frozen foods.
It is important to note that irradiation cannot make up for mishan-
dling or unsanitary food processing practices. Irradiated foods must be
properly packaged to prevent re-contamination, kept at proper tempera-
tures, and handled with care during food preparation to avoid cross con-
tamination from other (unirradiated) foods or unsanitary utensils.
Improved food handling alone could reduce but not prevent contamina-
tion by pathogenic bacteria. Irradiation gives us an additional, comple-
mentary tool to ensure food safety.
Cooking to proper temperatures also kills pathogenic microorgan-
isms, so properly cooked meat and poultry products are not hazardous
even if they have not been irradiated. However, contamination can
occur during food preparation, and foods such as meat, poultry and
seafood—that often are contaminated by pathogenic bacteria—may in
turn contaminate uncooked products such as fruits and vegetables, if
strict sanitation control is not employed. Many illnesses and even deaths
occurred in recent years because of laxity in sanitation procedures dur-
ing food preparation. For example, in 1993 an outbreak of E. coli
O157:H7 food poisoning in a fast food restaurant resulted in the deaths
of several children and hundreds of hospitalizations. Since as few as 10
E. coli O157:H7 bacteria can cause illness and death in some people,
very high levels of sanitation are needed. Another major benefit of irra-
diated meat, poultry and seafood is that such products do not carry
pathogens into food preparation areas where contamination of other
foods could occur.

Radiation Sterilization
Irradiation is used currently to sterilize—that is, kill—all microor-
ganisms on more than 50% of disposable medical devices (including
gauze, surgical gloves and supplies) used in the United States. The same
technique can also be applied to foods, and extensive research has been
conducted to demonstrate that a relatively high dose of irradiation
(above 10 kGy), together with a mild heat treatment and proper packag-
ing, can kill all microorganisms and allow foods to be kept for long
periods at room temperature. This process is analogous to canning,
which uses heat treatment to achieve the same preservation status. Meat,
poultry, some types of fish and shellfish, some vegetables and entire

11
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
meals are suitable for radiation sterilization. Radiation sterilization has
been used in the U.S. to sterilize food for NASA’s astronauts and for
some patients with impaired immune systems. Radiation sterilization of
food/meals could help outdoor enthusiasts (campers, mountain
climbers, sailors, etc.) carry safe, nutritious and ready to eat food that
requires no refrigerated storage.

Replacing Chemical Fumigation of Food

Irradiation can kill insects and microorganisms in cereals, legumes,
spices and dried vegetable seasonings, as well as other stored foods.
Irradiation could be used in place of chemical fumigation with ethylene
dibromide (EDB, now banned in the U.S. and most other countries),
ethylene oxide (banned in the European Union and Japan) and methyl
bromide (MB).
Ethylene oxide (EtO) was widely used for fumigating spices and
food ingredients to reduce microbial contamination. However, the toxi-
city of EtO and its derivatives—especially ethylene-chlorohydrin, a car-
cinogen—resulted in its being banned by the European Union in 1991.
Irradiation provides an effective residue-free alternative to EtO fumiga-
tion that will also ensure the hygienic quality of food ingredients.
Currently MB, a widely used fumigant for insect control in fresh
and dried fruits, is being phased out globally under an international
environmental treaty called the Montreal Protocol, because of its strong
ozone depletion potential. The U.S., along with other countries, is
bound by this protocol and will phase out production of MB by 1
January 2005. Irradiation can provide a safe alternative to fumigation
by MB to control insect infestation in fresh and dried horticultural
produce.

Sprout Inhibition
Very-low-dose irradiation treatment inhibits the sprouting of veg-
etables such as potatoes, onions and garlic. Irradiation can replace the
chemicals currently used for this purpose. The United States and
many other nations have approved this use of irradiation for several
types of roots, tubers, and bulbs. Currently, irradiation is used exten-
sively to control sprouting of garlic and potatoes in China and Japan,
respectively.

Enhancing Food Quality

Low-dose irradiation also delays ripening and therefore extends the
shelf-life of some fruits, including bananas, mangoes, papayas, guavas

12
and tomatoes. Medium doses can be used to control mold growth on
strawberries, raspberries and blueberries, thereby extending their shelf-
life. Cap opening of mushrooms can also be delayed by relatively low
dose irradiation and cool storage.
Irradiation can produce desirable physical changes in some foods.
Bread made from irradiated wheat has greater loaf volume when certain
dough formulations are used, irradiated dehydrated vegetables reconsti-
tute more quickly than non-irradiated vegetables, and when fruits such
as grapes are irradiated they yield more juice than non-irradiated ones.

Eliminating Certain Parasitic Hazards in Food

A low dose of radiation similar to that used to inhibit sprouting of
roots and tubers or delay fruit ripening can eliminate the hazards of
humans contracting trichinosis and toxoplasmosis from consumption of
fresh foods such as pork without significantly affecting the flavor or
texture of the meat. Irradiated pork cannot cause trichinosis or toxoplas-
mosis if it is undercooked or eaten raw. Irradiation treatment works by
impairing the development of these parasites (Trichinella spiralis,
Toxoplasma gondii) so that they cannot mature, complete their life
cycles or cause human diseases.
The United States is one of the few technologically developed coun-
tries that does not inspect for Trichinella spiralis in commercial pork.
Although Trichinella is uncommon in pork, it is a major problem in
wild game. It can be serious and several cases occur in the United States
each year. Some of the cases involve recent immigrants who have come
to the United States from
areas where trichinosis is
not a problem and so are Irradiation is a Versatile Process
unaware of the need to
cook American pork thor-
oughly. Currently, many countries will not accept pork exported from
the United States unless the meat is heat treated or frozen (freezing can
kill the Trichinella parasite). Irradiation could play a major role in the
U.S. pork industry’s effort to develop a certified Trichinella-free pork
supply, and it would make U.S. pork more acceptable in international
commerce.

Irradiation is a Versatile Process

Irradiation causes a variety of changes in living cells. Like cooking,
the effect of irradiation on foods varies with the energy or dose (of heat
or irradiation) applied. High-dose irradiation kills all spoilage and patho-

13
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
genic bacteria and their spores in food. Food thus treated can be kept at
room temperature when properly packaged to prevent recontamination.
Medium doses inactivate spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms
in foods, and together with proper temperature control, provide a signif-
icant shelf-life extension. Low doses alter biochemical reactions in
foods of plant origin in such a way that their sprouting or ripening
processes can be significantly delayed. Low doses also interfere with
cell division, thus preventing insects or parasites in foods from either
reproducing or completing their life cycles.
Similar to other food processes, irradiation has technical and eco-
nomic limitations that prevent its use on all foods under all circum-
stances. For example, irradiation cannot extend shelf-life of fresh food
forever because enzymes in fresh foods, e.g., fruits and vegetables, fish,
seafood, meat and poultry, etc., are still active and are resistant even to
high-dose irradiation. Too high a dose of irradiation could induce loss
of flavor in many foods—especially those that are high in fat. Irradiated
grains and legumes have to be properly packaged to prevent insects
from re-infesting the products,
as irradiation does not leave
any toxic residue that would Irradiation is not the same
repel insects. Some foods, e.g., as cooking in a microwave
milk and dairy products, are oven. Irradiation does not
not suitable for irradiation as make food radioactive.
they would develop unpalat-
able flavors. Irradiation has an
economy of scale, i.e. a sufficient volume of food is required for pro-
cessing to justify the investment.

E F F ECTS OF IRRAD I ATION ON FO OD S

Is Irradiation the Same Thing as Cooking in a Microwave
Oven?
No. Irradiation involves the treatment of food with ionizing radia-
tion to achieve desired effects, e.g., killing pathogens, extending shelf-
life, controlling sprouting, replacing chemical fumigation, etc., without
significantly increasing the temperature of food. Thus it is a non-ther-
mal process. In contrast, microwave ovens expose foods to a non-ioniz-
ing radiation that generates heat by increasing the molecular motion of
the water molecules in moist foods, thus cooking them.

14
Does Irradiation Make Food Radioactive?
No. Irradiation does not make food radioactive. The types of radiation
sources approved for the treatment of foods have specific energy levels
well below that which would cause any element in food to become
radioactive. Food undergoing irradiation does not become any more
radioactive than luggage passing through an airport X-ray scanner or teeth
that have been X-rayed. It should be noted that everything in our environ-
ment, including food, contains natural trace amounts of radioactivity
(background level). Irradiation of food at any dose will not result in an
increased radioactivity beyond that of the background environment.

Does Irradiation Generate Radioactive Wastes?

No. The process simply involves exposing food to a source of radia-
tion. It does not create any new radioactive material. When the strength
(activity) of radioactive sources such as cobalt or cesium falls below
economical usage levels, the sources are returned in a licensed shipping
container to the suppliers, who have the option of either reactivating
them or storing them in a regulated place. Basically, the same proce-
dures are followed when an irradiation plant closes down. The radiation
sources can be acquired by another user or returned to the supplier, the
machinery dismantled, and the building used for other purposes.
When a machine source such as electron beam or X-ray generators,
which use electricity as their power sources, is used for irradiating food,
neither radioactivity nor radioactive materials is involved.

Effects on Microorganisms in Foods

Different types and species of microorganisms have different sensi-
tivities to irradiation. Spoilage and disease-causing (pathogenic) bacte-
ria of different species, the major causes of food spoilage and many
common food-borne diseases, are generally sensitive to irradiation and
can be inactivated by low and medium doses of radiation between 1 and
7 kGy. Bacterial spores are more resistant and require higher doses
(above 10 kGy) for inactivation. As with any sub-sterilization process,
special care must be taken when irradiating food using low and medium
doses to kill off spoilage and pathogenic bacteria, to avoid growth and
toxin production by spores of Clostridium botulinum bacteria (which
causes botulism poisoning) that may be in some foods, and which can
survive the treatment. This can be done through the use of good manu-
facturing practices, e.g., storing food products subject to radiation pas-
teurization at low temperature (below 4o C or 39 o F) to prevent growth
of C. botulinum spores. Yeasts and molds, which can spoil some food,

15
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
are slightly more resistant to irradiation than are bacteria and require a
dose of at least 3 kGy to inactivate them. Since viruses are highly
resistant to radiation and require a dose of between 20 to 50 kGy to
inactivate them, irradiation would not be a suitable means of dealing
with viral contamination of foods.
There is a misconception that food irradiation produces harmful
mutant strains of pathogenic microorganisms that might flourish in the
absence of the bacteria killed by irradiation. Results of research carried
out to examine this potential risk have been reassuring. Irradiation of
food at doses required to inactivate spoilage and disease-causing bacte-
ria results in major damage to their chromosomes—damage that is
beyond repair. Thus, any surviving pathogenic bacteria in irradiated
food are significantly injured and they are unable to reproduce. The
food, on the other hand, that might be contaminated is not alive and
thus is not damaged by irradiation.

Effects on Nutrients in Foods

A common consumer concern is whether irradiation adversely
affects the nutritional value of food. The fact is that irradiation treat-
ments do not change the nutritional quality of foods any more than do
other methods of food processing such as cooking, freezing or canning.
Any changes in nutritional value caused by irradiation depend on a
number of factors—radiation dose, the type of food, temperature and
atmosphere in which irradiation is performed (e.g., presence or absence
of oxygen), packaging and storage time. Main components of foods
such as proteins, fats and carbohydrates are changed very little by irra-
diation, even at doses higher than 10 kGy. Similarly, the essential
amino acids, minerals, trace elements and most vitamins are not signifi-
cantly altered by irradiation. Some vitamins—riboflavin, niacin and
vitamin D—are fairly resistant to irradiation, but vitamins A, B1 (thi-
amine), E and K are relatively sensitive. Their sensitivities depend on
the complexity of the food system, whether the vitamins are soluble in
water or fat, and the atmosphere in which irradiation occurs. For exam-
ple, a solution of thiamine in water lost 50% of the vitamin after irradi-
ation at 0.5 kGy. In contrast, irradiation of dried whole egg at the same
dose caused less than 5% destruction of the same vitamin. Thiamine is
more sensitive to heat than it is to irradiation. Research has demonstrat-
ed that even pork and beef treated by high-dose irradiation retain much
more thiamine than canned meat, which is considered to be “commer-
cially sterilized.” Results of studies on the effects of irradiation on vita-
min C in fruits and vegetables often are conflicting. Some studies
reported an effect only on ascorbic acid, while others reported an effect

16
on total ascorbic acid, which is a mixture of ascorbic and dehydroascor-
bic acid, both of which provide vitamin C activity.
On the whole, however, the effects of irradiation on the nutritional
value of foods are insignificant for low doses (up to 1 kGy); some loss-
es may occur at medium doses (1-10 kGy) if food is irradiated in the
presence of air; and high losses of sensitive vitamins such as thiamine
may occur at high doses (above 10 kGy). As with other food processes,
vitamin losses can be mitigated by protective actions, i.e. irradiation at
low temperature and exclusion of air during processing and storage.
Thus, the effects of irradiation on nutritional values in food in general
are minimal and not greater than those in food processed by other meth-
ods for the same purposes. It should also be remembered that irradiated
food will be consumed as part of a mixed diet, and that the process will
have little impact on the total intake of specific nutrients.

Effects on Sensory Quality of Foods

Not all foods are suitable for processing by any one preservation
method. Thus we need an array of food processing technologies to pre-
serve or render food safe for consumption. Similar to other processes,
irradiation causes certain chemical changes in food that may, under
some circumstances, noticeably affect food quality.
Some foods react unfavorably even to low doses of irradiation. Milk
and dairy products are among the most radiation-sensitive foods. A dose
as low as 0.1 kGy will impart an off-flavor to milk that most consumers
find unacceptable; thus milk and dairy products are generally not irradi-
ated. Irradiation of some fresh fruits and vegetables may cause softening
because of the breakdown of cell walls. High-dose irradiation steriliza-
tion could induce “off” flavors in many types of meat products if the
process is not done properly.
Similar to food processed by other methods, food must be treated
by irradiation under proper conditions, using the optimum dose for each
food, for the food to benefit from the treatment. Too high a dose may
affect the food’s sensory qualities, while too low a dose will not achieve
the intended sanitation, or other technical effect. Research by food sci-
entists has determined the types of food that are suitable for irradiation,
as well as the conditions that prevent damage or off-flavor. It is now
generally recognized that roots and tubers, cereals and legumes, meat,
poultry, fish and seafood, most fruits and vegetables, spices and season-
ings, can be irradiated under proper conditions without causing notice-
able changes in sensory quality. Some sensitive food products such as
meat and fish should be irradiated under low temperature and in proper
atmospheric packaging to avoid off-flavor.

17
 I r rad i ated Fo od s

SAFETY OF IRRAD I ATED FO OD S

Are Irradiated Foods Safe to Eat?
Yes. The safety of food irradiation has been thoroughly studied and
comprehensively evaluated for over 50 years, both in the United States
and elsewhere. No food
technology has ever been
as extensively studied and Irradiated foods are safe to eat.
evaluated with respect to
safety as has food irradia-
tion. The studies involved many animal feeding tests including multi-
generation tests in animals, e.g., rats, mice, dogs and monkeys, to deter-
mine if any changes in growth, blood chemistry, histopathology or
reproduction occurred that might be attributable to consumption of dif-
ferent types of irradiated foods as part of their daily diets. Data from
these studies were systematically evaluated by panels of experts that
included toxicologists, nutritionists, microbiologists, radiation chemists
and radiobiologists, convened repeatedly by the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO) in 1964, 1969,
1976, 1980 and 1997, as data became available. In 1980, the Joint
FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of
Irradiated Food (JECFI) concluded that “Irradiation of any food com-
modity up to an overall average dose of 10 kGy introduces no toxico-
logical hazard; hence, toxicological testing of food so treated is no
longer required.” The JECFI also stated that irradiation of food up to a
dose of 10 kGy introduces no special microbiological or nutritional
problems.
Investigations since 1981 have continued to support the JECFI’s
conclusions about the safety of food irradiation. These investigations
included a small human feeding trial in China in which 21 male and 22
female volunteers consumed 62 to 71% of their total caloric intake as
irradiated foods for 15 weeks. Since 1980, there has been no credible
scientific evidence, either from human feeding studies or from consump-
tion of several types of irradiated foods available in commercial quanti-
ties in several countries that indicate such foods pose a toxic hazard.
In 1997, FAO, IAEA and WHO convened a Joint Study Group to
evaluate data on wholesomeness studies of food irradiated with doses
above 10 kGy. Based on scientific evidence supporting the safety of
food irradiated with any dose, above or below 10 kGy, the Joint Study
Group concluded that food irradiated with any dose to achieve technical

18
objectives is safe and nutritionally adequate. No upper dose limit there-
fore needs to be imposed as long as food is irradiated based on prevail-
ing good manufacturing practices. The safety of irradiated foods is also
supported by data on extensive experience with laboratory animal diets
that had been sterilized by irradiation. Over the past few decades, mil-
lions of laboratory animals including rats, mice and other species have
been bred and reared exclusively on radiation-sterilized diets. Several
generations of these animals were fed diets irradiated with doses rang-
ing from 25 to 50 kGy. The studies took place in laboratories in several
countries—Austria, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan,
Switzerland, the UK and the USA. No transmittable genetic defects—
teratogenic or oncogenic—have been observed that could be attributed
to the consumption of irradiated diets.

Determining the Safety of Irradiated Foods

Establishing the safety of irradiated foods involves consideration of
several allied scientific disciplines:
• Radiation Chemistry
• General Toxicology/Animal Testing
• Nutrition
• Microbiology
• Packaging

Radiation Chemistry
Scientists have collected substantial information on the chemical
changes that occur when foods are irradiated. Many of the substances
produced by irradiation (radiolytic products) have been identified
through the use of sensitive analytical techniques. “Radiolytic” does not
mean radioactive or toxic in any way. It simply means that these sub-
stances are produced by irradiation in the same manner as “thermolytic
products” are produced by heat processing. Most of these radiolytic
products have proved to be familiar substances that exist in nonirradiat-
ed foods or that are also produced in foods by conventional processes
such as cooking. The safety of radiolytic products has been examined
very thoroughly, and no evidence of a hazard has been found. A recent
claim by a group of European scientists about the potential toxicity of
2-alkyl cyclobutanones, a group of radiolytic products formed in irradi-
ated fat-containing foods such as meat and poultry, could not be sub-
stantiated by modern methods of toxicity testing. Whenever food is irra-
diated, the same radiolytic products are formed, regardless of the radia-
tion dose; only the amounts of the radiolytic products differ.

19
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
Accordingly, the results of an investigation carried out on the radiolytic
products formed in a food irradiated at a high dose can generally be
applied to lower-dose treatments of the same food. Also, similar food
compounds (e.g., proteins, lipids, carbohydrates) have been shown to
react to irradiation in similar ways regardless of the type of food; the
same kinds of radiolytic products are formed in either case. It thus is
not necessary to study every irradiated food in detail; information
obtained about the safety of radiolytic products in one food can be
applied to the evaluation of other, chemically similar foods. This princi-
ple of safety evaluation has been dubbed “chemiclearance.”
A question is often raised about toxicity of “free radicals” in irradi-
ated food. Free radicals are atoms or molecules that contain an unpaired
electron. They are formed in irradiated food as well as in foods
processed by baking, frying, freeze drying and oxidation processing.
Free radicals are very reactive, unstable structures that continuously
react with other substances to form stable products. Free radicals in
foods would disappear after they reacted with each other in the pres-
ence of liquids, such as saliva in the mouth. Consequently, their inges-
tion does not create any toxicological or other harmful effects. This was
confirmed by a specially designed animal feeding study carried out in
Germany in1974 using high-dose (45 kGy) irradiated dry milk powder
that contained large amounts of free radicals. Nine generations of rats
were fed this irradiated diet without any indication of toxic effects.
Similarly, a slice of toasted bread (non-irradiated) actually contains
more free radicals than any irradiated food and can be expected to be
harmless for consumption.

General Toxicology/Animal Testing

The most common procedure for evaluating the safety of foods or
food ingredients is to feed them in excessive amounts to animals and
then to observe the animals’ growth, reproduction and general health.
Many studies have been conducted in which large portions of irradiated
foods were incorporated into animals’ diets. Some foods were treated
with doses as high as 59 kGy and were fed to several different animal
species. Most such studies involved observations of several generations
of animals.
Animal tests are used to demonstrate the safety of a food or food
substance and are an effective way to detect potential toxicological haz-
ards. Properly designed laboratory animal tests can also detect potential
cancer hazards and reproductive problems. Animal feeding studies car-
ried out with irradiated food have consistently failed to find evidence of

20
a health hazard. Among the many extensive animal feeding studies of
irradiated food, those conducted at the Raltech Laboratory, USA, are
generally acknowledged to be among the best and most statistically
powerful of all. These studies used chicken meat irradiated either by a
cobalt-60 source or electron machine up to a dose of 59 kGy. Some 134
metric tons of chicken meat were used in multi-generation feeding stud-
ies of mice, rats, hamsters and dogs, to compare high-dose irradiation
with heat sterilization of chicken meat. No adverse effects from con-
suming chicken processed with high doses of radiation were reported:
indeed, there were no significant differences between animals eating
chicken meat sterilized by either process. Similarly, a study in the
Netherlands found no evidence of any toxicological hazard for humans
who ate irradiation-sterilized ham.

Nutritional Studies
For details, please see “Effects on Nutrients in Foods” under the
section “Effects of Irradiation,” above.

Microbiological Studies
It is widely recognized by food control authorities that irradiation is
an effective method of inactivating microorganisms and parasites in
foods. High dose radiation sterilization can destroy all microorganisms,
including spores of C. botulinum bacteria, with the same degree of effi-
cacy as the heat treatment used to destroy these organisms in commer-
cially canned foods.
There has been some concern that the risk of food poisoning, espe-
cially from botulism, might be increased by radiation doses in the pas-
teurization range as spores of C. botulinum bacteria could survive these
doses and could later grow and produce toxin in irradiated food. This
concern is not unique to irradiation; it also applies to other processes,
including heat pasteurization and chemical treatments, that cause the
partial destruction of microorganisms in a food. Any food to be
processed using sub-sterilization doses must be handled, packaged,
processed and stored following good manufacturing practices (GMPs),
which are designed to prevent growth and toxin production by emerging
spores of C. botulinum bacteria. Alternatively, sterilization processes
either by heat or irradiation can be used to destroy any such spores pres-
ent in the food.

Packaging Materials
Because some foods will already be packaged when they are irradi-

21
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
ated, the effects of irradiation on food packaging materials has been
studied. The irradiation treatment must neither impair package integrity
(potentially subjecting the packaged food to later contamination) nor
deposit toxic radiation reaction products or additives on the food.
Results of extensive research have shown that almost all commonly
used plastic packaging materials tested are suitable for use at any irradi-
ation dose likely to be applied to food, including sterilization treatment.
Glass is an exception because irradiation may affect its color. The FDA
and some other national food control authorities in Canada, India and
Poland have approved a variety of packaging materials for use in food
irradiation.
It should be noted that many types of packaging materials are rou-
tinely sterilized by irradiation before being filled with foods. These
include hermetically sealed “bag-in-a-box” containers for tomato paste,
fruit juices and wines; dairy product packaging; single-serving contain-
ers (e.g., for cream); and wine bottle corks. Irradiation is also used to
“cross-link” some plastic materials that will be in contact with food in
order to improve their strength, heat resistance and other properties
(e.g., heat-shrink wrap films).

Safety of Food Irradiation Facilities

Would Food Irradiation Facilities Endanger Local Communities?

No. A food irradiation plant would not endanger a community. It
would be no different from the approximately 40 medical-products irradi-
ation sterilization plants and the more than 1,000 hospital radiation-thera-
py units using cobalt-60 as radiation sources, as well as the hundreds of
industrial electron irradiation
facilities used for different pur-
poses, now operating in the Irradiation facilities are safe
United States. None of these for local communities.
facilities has been found to
pose a danger to the surround-
ing community. To be sure, a food irradiation facility must be designed,
constructed and operated properly, as well as duly licensed by national or
state authorities. This does not represent a new challenge, since the neces-
sary safety precautions are well understood. They have long been applied
in the design, construction and maintenance of similar types of irradiation
facilities used for other purposes over the past 50 years.

22
 Could There Be a “Meltdown” in a Food Irradiation Facility?
No. It is impossible for a “meltdown” to occur in a food irradiation
plant or for a radiation source to explode. The radioisotopic sources
approved for food irradiation, i.e., cobalt-60 and cesium-137, cannot
produce the neutrons that can make materials radioactive, so no
“nuclear chain reaction” can occur at such an irradiation facility. Food
irradiation plants contain shielded chambers within which the foods are
exposed to a source of ionizing radiation. The radiation sources used in
food irradiation cannot overheat, explode, leak or release radioactivity
into the environment.

Safety of Transporting Radioactive Materials to and from

Irradiation Facilities
Like all potentially hazardous substances, radioactive materials
must be transported in specially designed containers with appropriate
safety precautions required by law. In the United States the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has jurisdiction over the safe storage
and disposal of radioactive material as well as over the operation of
irradiation facilities using radioisotopes. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) has carrier requirements for the transport of haz-
ardous materials, including radioactive cobalt and cesium. These sub-
stances have been transported to irradiation facilities and hospitals
throughout the world for many years without difficulty. The containers
used for the transport of radioactive cobalt are so well shielded and
damage-resistant that the DOT permits them to be shipped by common
carrier.
There is no transport problem at all if an irradiation facility uses
machine-generated (electron or X-ray) radiation, because no radioactive
materials are involved.

Would Workers in a Food Irradiation Plant Be Exposed to

Hazardous Radiation?
No. Irradiation facilities, including those used for food irradiation,
are designed with several levels of safety redundancy to detect equip-
ment malfunction and to protect personnel from accidental radiation
exposure. All irradiation facilities must be licensed by national or state
authorities to ensure their safety for the workers as well as for the envi-
ronment. Regulations in all countries require such facilities to be
inspected periodically to ensure compliance with the terms of the oper-
ating licenses. As a result of long experience in designing and operating
similar types of irradiation facilities, the necessary precautions for

23
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
worker safety in a food irradiation plant are well understood. In the
U.S., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
responsible for regulating worker protection from all sources of ioniz-
ing radiation. Food irradiation plants that use cobalt or cesium as their
radiation source must be licensed by the NRC or an appropriate state
agency. The NRC is responsible for the safety of workers in facilities it
has licensed.
Plants in the United States that use machine-generated radiation are
under the jurisdiction of state agencies, which have established appro-
priate performance standards to ensure worker safety.
See Appendix IV for diagrams of typical food irradiation facilities.

Is Irradiating Food a Means of Using Radioactive Wastes?

No. Spent fuel from nuclear reactors (radioactive waste) is not used
in any food or industrial irradiation facilities. Of the four possible radia-
tion sources for use in food irradiation, only one—cesium—is a by-
product of nuclear fission. It is of limited commercial availability and is
not used in any industrial irradiation facility. Cobalt-60, the most com-
monly used radioactive source for industrial radiation processing—
including food irradiation—has to be manufactured specifically for this
purpose; hence it is not a “nuclear waste” product. Cobalt-60 is pro-
duced by activating cobalt-59,
a non-radioactive metal, in a
Food irradiation does not
nuclear reactor to absorb neu-
trons and change its character- use radioactive wastes.
istics to cobalt-60, which is
radioactive and generates gamma rays. Canada is the largest producer
of cobalt-60, representing about 75% of world production. The remain-
ing producers are in France, Argentina, Russia, China and India.
Cobalt-60 suppliers can in principle reactivate used cobalt-60 sources,
if required, thus effectively recycling them.
Electrically generated electron beam and X-ray machines have been
designed and used for irradiating food in the United States, especially
for ensuring microbiological safety of ground beef and meeting the
quarantine requirements for tropical fruits. When such machines, which
use electricity as power sources, are used for irradiating food, there is
neither radioactivity nor radioactive materials involved.

How Can We Be Sure That Foods Are Properly Irradiated?

The effectiveness of a specific application of irradiation on food
must be verified by FDA and USDA. When these agencies approve

24
specific applications of food irradiation, they require that food be irradi-
ated in facilities licensed for this purpose. These facilities also must use
correct radiation doses as required by law, according to good manufac-
turing practices (GMPs) and as part of an overall HACCP plan. These
guidelines emphasize that, as with all food technologies, effective quali-
ty control systems need to be established and closely monitored at criti-
cal control points at the irradiation facility. In all cases, only food of
high quality should be accepted for irradiation. As with other technolo-
gies, irradiation cannot be used as a substitute for poor hygienic prac-
tices or to reverse spoilage.

LEGAL AND REG U L ATORY ASP ECTS OF FO OD

I R RAD I ATI O N
International Standards and Agreements Governing Trade in
Food and Agricultural Commodities
Trade in food and agricultural commodities has become increasing-
ly global since the establishment of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) in 1995. In the past, importing countries were essentially free to
establish their own rules. Now, all governments that belong to the WTO
will have to follow one set of rules and procedures. By accepting the
Agreement that established the WTO, governments agreed to be bound
by the rules of all of the multilateral trade agreements attached to it,
including the SPS (Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)
and TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) Agreements. These Agreements,
which the WTO enforces, are of particular relevance to international
trade in food and agricultural commodities.
In particular, the SPS Agreement is designed to protect the health
and life of humans, animals and plants through trade in food and agri-
cultural commodities. It recognizes standards, guidelines and recom-
mendations of relevant international organizations, which assist WTO in
settling trade disputes with respect to these commodities. Especially rel-
evant rules and rule-making bodies include:
• Codex Alimentarius Commission (food safety)
• International Plant Protection Convention (plant protection and
quarantine)
• International Office of Epizootics (animal health).

International rules of particular significance for food irradiation are

discussed below.

25
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods
The Codex Standard, promulgated in 1980, recognizes the safety
and effectiveness of irradiation as a food process, regardless of the
types of food or the purpose of irradiation, up to an overall average
dose of 10 kGy. The Standard did not imply that food irradiated with
doses above 10 kGy would be unsafe for consumption.
Because of this international standard, national authorities should
implement regulations on food irradiation in a harmonized fashion.
Unfortunately, many countries opted to allow irradiation on specific
food items, instead of as a general food process such as heat processing.
In some cases, different radiation doses were authorized for treating the
same food products in different countries. Such differences have created
obstacles to the introduction of irradiated foods into international trade.
As of November 2002, the Codex General Standard is being revised
based on the recommendations of the Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO study
group on high dose irradiation of food, which examined newer safety
data. Based on these data, they recommended removing the 10 kGy
limit, since scientific studies did not support the idea that higher doses
caused any adverse effect attributable to the consumption of irradiated
foods.

International Guidelines on Irradiation Phytosanitary Measures of

the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
The effectiveness of irradiation as a sanitary treatment of fresh hor-
ticultural produce (phytosanitary treatment) has been demonstrated by
decades of research as well as by recent commercial applications.
Irradiation could facilitate international trade in fresh produce as well as
provide a suitable alternative to fumigation by methyl bromide (which
is being phased out globally). Currently, the Interim Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM), the standard-setting body of IPPC, is
completing international guidelines on irradiation phytosanitary meas-
ures for fresh horticultural produce. Such guidelines should facilitate
wide international trade in fresh produce.

Position of the World Health Organization (WHO)

The World Health Organization (WHO), the FAO and IAEA have
been actively involved in the evaluation of food irradiation safety since
the early 1960s. WHO has stated on several occasions that it is satisfied
with the safety of food irradiated with any dose used for various appli-
cations, as stated in Table 1 in the section "What Can Irradiation Do?"
above. WHO has endorsed the effectiveness of irradiation for ensuring

26
microbiological safety of solid foods in the same manner as thermal
pasteurization has been successfully employed to do so in liquid foods
such as milk.
In November 2002, WHO issued a draft position document regard-
ing the safety of 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACBs), which occur when
fat-containing foods such as poultry meat and red meat are irradiated.
The possibility that these compounds might be toxic was raised by rep-
resentatives of the European Union in 2001. Following review of the
relevant data, both the European Comission and WHO concluded that
there were no sound scientific data to indicate that 2-ACBs as produced
in irradiated foods would pose a toxic hazard to humans.

How Have United States Health and Scientific Organizations

Reacted to Food Irradiation?
Leading health and scientific organizations, including the American
Medical Association (AMA), the American Dietetic Association (ADA),
the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) and the
Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) have long endorsed the safety and
benefits of food irradiation. In 1993 the AMA’s Council on Scientific
Affairs called food irradiation a “safe and effective process that increas-
es the safety of food when applied according to government regula-
tions.” The reports of studies done by ADA, CAST and IFT are listed in
the “Suggestions for Further Reading.”

What Is the Legal Status of Food Irradiation Around the World?

More than 50 countries have approved some applications of irradia-
tion, and irradiated foods are now produced for commercial purposes in
some 30 countries. Both the number of countries that have approved
irradiation for food processing as well as the numbers of approved prod-
ucts are increasing. Recently, the trend has been to approve irradiation
of classes of food (e.g., fruits, vegetables, meat and poultry, seafood,
roots and tubers, cereals and pulses, spices and seasonings, etc.) rather
than individual food items, per the recommendations of the ICGFI. In
China, approximately 100,000 tons of various foods were irradiated and
marketed in 2002. That same year, the U.S. produced close to 100,000
tons of irradiated ground beef, spices and vegetable seasonings, and
tropical fruits from Hawaii. In Japan, 15,000 to 20,000 tons of potatoes
are irradiated each year to prevent spoilage due to sprouting. A wide
variety of irradiated foods has been approved in Belgium, France, the
Netherlands and South Africa, and each of these countries produces
approximately 10,000 tons of irradiated food annually.

27
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
The European Union (EU) as a bloc has been more restrictive in its
approach to food irradiation. In 1999 it issued two Directives governing
the use of food irradiation in all member countries of the EU (as of this
writing, 15 countries are members of the EU). Included was a list of
irradiated food products that are allowed to be produced and marketed.
However, the only group of irradiated food products on this list were
spices, herbs and dried vegetable seasonings. Attempts by the European
Commission to add more irradiated food products to this list have not
been successful because of political, emotional and ideological stances
of various member countries. EU countries that had approved other
irradiated food products prior to 1999 can maintain their national
approvals until such time as the EU completes its list of irradiated food
products.
The estimated global quantity of irradiated food that entered com-
mercial channels in 2002 was approximately 300,000 tons, of which
about one-third were irradiated spices and dried vegetable seasonings.
This quantity is expected to increase significantly in the next few years
as irradiation is increasingly used as a sanitary and phytosanitary treat-
ment in order to meet national and international trade requirements.
The details of approval of irradiated foods in different countries
may be obtained from the database of the International Consultative
Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI), established under the aegis of FAO,
IAEA and WHO in 1984, at www.iaea.org/icgfi/database.

What Is the Legal Status of Food Irradiation in the United

States?
Food irradiation is regulated as a food additive (rather than as a
process, like canning) by the FDA under the terms of the 1958 Food
Additive Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. This law
prohibits the use of a new food additive until its sponsor has established
its safety and until the FDA has issued a regulation specifying condi-
tions of safe use. The law specifically includes “any source of radia-
tion” in its definition of “food additive.” This legal definition created
some problems in early studies of the safety of irradiation.
Improvements in safety-testing technology and in the scientific knowl-
edge of radiation chemistry were needed before the safety of irradiated
foods could be evaluated adequately. In 1986, the FDA published a rule
in the Federal Register approving the use of irradiation for insect disin-
festation and control of physiological processes in food of plant origin,
up to a maximum dose of 1 kGy. The rule also mandated labeling
requirements for irradiated foods. FDA has also approved the use of

28
irradiation to control insects and microorganisms in spices, herbs and
plant-derived dehydrated foods (1983); to control Trichinella in pork
(1985); to destroy pathogenic bacteria, e.g., Salmonella in poultry
(1990); to destroy pathogenic bacteria in red meat (1997); to inactivate
Salmonella in shell eggs (2000); and to control pathogens in sprouted
seeds (2000). For a detailed list of approvals of irradiated foods in the
U.S. as well as in Canada and Mexico, please see Appendix III.

CURRENT AND POTE N TIAL APP LI CATI O NS

Sanitary Treatment

Irradiated Red Meat

In 1993, there was an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 from under-
cooked hamburgers served at a chain restaurant on the West coast of the
United States. This bacterial contamination caused hundreds of illnesses
and the deaths of several children, and was widely publicized by the
media. The American public became well aware of the possible risks
from consuming such a common food product in their daily diets. In
1994 the USDA took steps to more strictly regulate E. coli O157:H7 in
ground beef and other non-intact meat as an “adulterant.” Since then,
there have been several massive recalls of thousands of tons of ground
beef, and both the food industry and consumers began to demand that
an effective technology such as irradiation be used to combat such path-
ogenic contamination. In May 2000, ground beef irradiated by electron
beam technology began to enter commercial distribution in the United
States.
This product has been well received by consumers. The first food
company to sell irradiated ground beef at the retail level was Huisken
Meat, Inc., based in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. In 2000, the company had
projected 2 million pounds of irradiated beef patties would sell in its
second and third quarters—but reported actually selling that amount in
five weeks.
A number of supermarket chains, both regional and national, have
since begun to market irradiated ground beef, some using their own
brand names. In March 2003, over 7,000 American supermarkets and
retail outlets carried irradiated ground beef on a routine basis. Several
more supermarket chains plan to do so in the near future.

29
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
Irradiated Poultry Meat
Although the FDA approved irradiation of poultry meat in 1990,
followed by the USDA’s approval in 1992, little commercial production
and marketing of irradiated poultry meat actually took place until
recently. A food irradiation facility using cobalt-60 as the radiation
source, called Food Technology Service (FTS), Inc. in Florida started
marketing irradiated poultry meat in the mid-1990s under the Nation’s
Pride brand name but had only limited success. So far, sale of irradiat-
ed poultry meat remains somewhat limited, although a major supermar-
ket chain in the Southeast, Publix, started marketing frozen irradiated
poultry breasts in all of its 725 stores in January 2003. Commercial
quantities of irradiated poultry meat have been distributed to several
restaurants and some hospitals in Florida. The reason for limited mar-
keting of irradiated poultry meat was probably attributable to the fact
that the USDA has not recognized Salmonella and other pathogenic
bacteria such as Campylobacter jejuni in poultry meat as “adulterants”
to be combated with irradiation. In fact, though, these bacteria cause
many more illnesses and deaths than does E. coli O157:H7-contami-
nated red meat. The success in using irradiation to control E. coli
O157:H7 in red meat may give rise to a demand by consumers that
their poultry meat should also be irradiated to ensure safety from path-
ogenic bacteria.

Irradiated Fish and Seafoods

The FDA has not yet approved the use of irradiation for fish or
seafood. There are two petitions pending with the FDA to approve irra-
diated mollusks and shrimp because of the high number of food-borne
disease outbreaks caused by Vibrio vulnificus in raw mollusks such as
oysters and clams and by Salmonella in shrimp. Scientific data support
the effectiveness of irradiation to control Salmonella in fresh and frozen
shrimp and Vibrio bacteria in live oysters and clams. Irradiated oysters
and clams remain alive, although their longevity may be shortened.

Ready-to-Eat Food Products

Increasing consumer demand for convenience or ready-to-eat foods
that are safe, high in quality, nutritionally superior, and easy to prepare
has spurred the development of a variety of chilled foods that are sub-
ject to minimal processing or pre-cooking. This has been a new chal-
lenge for food safety, because the food industry must produce such
foods with enhanced shelf-life at refrigeration temperature but without
contamination by pathogenic microorganisms.

30
 Many types of ready-to-eat food products may be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes during production or post-processing. This
pathogenic type of bacteria can grow well in many ready-to-eat foods at
refrigeration temperatures. Because such foods are typically eaten with-
out further cooking, the potential for food-borne illness cannot be
ignored. The FDA requires “zero tolerance” of Listeria in such foods
because of the severity of the disease it can cause. There can also be a
high death rate—especially among immune-compromised populations,
including the elderly, children under 5 years of age and organ-transplant
patients. Listeria can also cause miscarriage.
In 1998/99, 21 deaths were caused by an outbreak of illness related
to consumption of sausages contaminated by Listeria monocytogenes.
This product was produced by one of the top ten meat processing com-
panies in the U.S. As a result, some 13,000 metric tons of sausages that
had been distributed nationwide had to be recalled and destroyed. In
October 2002, one of the largest food recalls in the history of the U.S.
occurred. It involved ready-to-eat poultry and turkey deli products con-
taminated with L. monocytogenes in several states. There had been a
series of outbreaks and death caused by this bacterium in several states.
A total of 27.4 million pounds (over 12,000 metric tons) of such prod-
ucts were recalled by one of the largest poultry production and process-
ing companies in the USA. In both cases, class action lawsuits followed.
In addition, there have been many incidences of food-borne illnesses
and deaths caused by consumption of contaminated fresh, pre-cut fruits
and vegetables. Several types of pathogenic bacteria and parasites
including Salmonella poona, Shigella, L. monocytogenes, E. coli
O157:H7 and Cyclospora cayetanensis, were responsible for these out-
breaks. In some cases, the outbreaks caused a major disruption in trade.
For example, hundreds of illnesses and hospitalizations caused by
Cyclospora cayetanensis from imported Guatemalan raspberries in 1996
interrupted import of this fruit from Guatemala for several years. A
recent outbreak caused by consumption of Mexican cantaloupe contami-
nated by Salmonella poona resulted in an import ban of this fuit. In
recent years, many outbreaks have occurred from consumption of raw
alfalfa and other sprouts. Pathogenic bacteria, such as Salmonella and E.
coli O157:H7, were involved, and the FDA warned against the eating of
such products—especially by immuno-compromised persons. Recent
research data showed that irradiation could be used for inactivating path-
ogenic bacteria in several types of fresh, pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
Recognizing that irradiation can inactivate pathogenic bacteria such
as L. monocytogenes, the U.S. National Food Processors Association

31
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
(NFPA) submitted a petition to the FDA in August 2000 to approve the
use of irradiation for such products. Such an approval will likely greatly
expand the use of irradiation, as there are many ready-to-eat food prod-
ucts (such as hot dogs and deli meats) whose safety could be enhanced
by this technology. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has estimated that if half of the ground beef, pork,
poultry and processed luncheon meats in the United States were irradi-
ated, there would be over 880,000 fewer cases of food-borne illness,
8,500 fewer hospitalizations, 6,660 fewer catastrophic illnesses and 352
lives saved every year.

Spices, Herbs and Dried Vegetable Seasonings

Microorganisms, including pathogenic bacteria, often contaminate
spices, herbs, and vegetable seasonings due to the traditional ways in
which such products are produced and processed. Thus, they have to be
treated either by fumigation with ethylene oxide (EtO) and propylene
oxide, heated, or irradiated. In Europe, EtO fumigation is no longer
allowed because of its toxicity to the workers as well as the possibly
carcinogenic byproducts formed when food products are fumigated. In
the United States, EtO fumigation is still allowed—both the FDA and
the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) consider the health risks
from this process to be minimal.
Irradiation has been widely used for ensuring the hygienic quality
of spices, herbs and dried vegetable seasonings since the 1980s. The
volume of irradiated products increased significantly in Europe after
EtO fumigation was banned in 1991. In the United States, the volume
of irradiated spices, herbs and vegetable seasonings has also increased
significantly to approximately 50,000 metric tons in 2001, making the
U.S. the largest producer of such irradiated products in the world.
Globally, some 100,000 metric tons of such products are produced in
some 20 countries.

Future Trends
The use of irradiation as a sanitary treatment will continue to grow
as consumers become more familiar with its benefits and with the risk
of food-borne illness from foods contaminated by various pathogenic
organisms. The food industry—especially in the U.S.—has already
embraced the use of irradiation for this purpose. Irradiation is consid-
ered a “cold pasteurization” process to ensure the hygienic quality of
solid foods in the same manner as thermal pasteurization has been suc-
cessfully applied to ensure hygienic quality of liquid foods such as

32
milk. The types and volume of irradiated food products treated for this
purpose are expected to grow significantly in the near future. It should
be noted that irradiation, similar to other food processing technologies,
will be used only on foods for which it can enhance either technical or
economic benefits. Not all food should or will be irradiated, just as not
all foods should or will be fumigated, canned or frozen.

Phytosanitary Treatment

Tropical Fruits from Hawaii

Several species of tropical fruit flies are endemic to the Hawaiian
islands, and can infest fruits grown there. These insects are quarantined
from entering the U.S. mainland, which is free from such pests. Thus,
the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) requires that
Hawaiian fruits be treated to ensure that these pests are not introduced
to the mainland United States, where they could wreak great damage on
domestic crops. Until recently, fumigation by ethylene dibromide or
methyl bromide, hot water dip or vapor heat treatments were used on
Hawaiian fruits.
Because sugar cane and pineapple, once staples of Hawaiian
exports, are no longer major crops, the Hawaiian Department of
Agriculture has explored the use of irradiation for disinfestation of a
variety of local fruits. Lychees, rambutan, carambola and cherimoya are
examples of Hawaiian fruits that may be grown to replace sugar and
pineapple as export crops. In early 1995, with special permission from
the USDA’s APHIS, fruits from Hawaii were flown to an irradiation
facility near Chicago, IL. Hundreds of tons of tropical fruits from
Hawaii were irradiated and marketed successfully in the Midwestern
United States between 1995 and early 2000. It was the first time many
Americans had tasted a variety of fresh, nutritious tropical fruits from
Hawaii. The success of this market trial prompted the Hawaiian authori-
ties to approve installation of a commercial X-ray machine for irradiat-
ing such fruits in Hilo, HI in July 2000. Thousands of tons of Hawaiian
fruits have since been irradiated for marketing in the mainland U.S.
Irradiation provides an added benefit to fruits such as papaya, since it
allows them to be more completely tree-ripened before harvest and
treatment, while other types of treatment have to be performed on
essentially unripe fruit. Consumers therefore get an extra benefit of con-
suming irradiated papayas with fully developed natural flavor.

33
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
Current APHIS Regulation on Irradiation Phytosanitary Treatment
of Imported Fruits and Vegetables
In October 2002, APHIS approved the use of irradiation against 11
major species of tropical and sub-tropical fruit fly and other pests,
regardless of commodities and countries of origin. This rule should
greatly facilitate trade in the tropical and sub-tropical fruits and vegeta-
bles that may harbor such pests.

Future Trends
With the increasing demand from the American public for fresh
fruits and vegetables, irradiation will likely assume an active role in
bringing fruits from tropical and sub-tropical countries into the USA.
Because many tropical fruits that were not previously allowed entry
into the U.S. market can now be treated by irradiation to control pests,
American consumers will have more varieties and greater quantities of
these fruits, some of which had not been available to them in domestic
markets. In return, U.S. fruit growers and exporters could demand that
markets in countries such as Australia, Japan and New Zealand, which
have strict quarantine security regulations, will be opened for irradiated
fruits exported from the United States.
The U.S. market for tropical and sub-tropical fruits could expand
further when APHIS recognizes the effectiveness of irradiation as a
method to meet quarantine requirements against even more insect pests
in fresh fruits and vegetables. Research data have demonstrated that
irradiation at specific minimum doses could provide even broader pro-
tection than is now allowed.

Quality Enhancement

Potatoes, Onions and Garlic

Japan was the first country to introduce irradiated food successfully into
the market in 1973 when a commercial potato irradiation plant was built at
Shihoro Agricultural Co-operative, Hokkaido. Some 15,000 metric tons of
potatoes have been irradiated annually to control sprouting for off-season
processing into various potato products. So far, Japan is the only country
that uses irradiation to control sprouting of potatoes on a commercial scale.
Onions have been irradiated for sprout control and marketing dur-
ing off-seasons in Argentina, Hungary, the Philippines and Thailand at
various times over the past 20 years. The scale of production of these
irradiated products remains small. China has become one of the largest
producers of irradiated foods in recent years. They have irradiated up to
50,000 metric tons of garlic each year in the past few years.

34
 Specialized Food Products
A number of specialized food products such as enzyme prepara-
tions, fermented pork sausages, honeys and shelf-stable meals have
been irradiated in some countries (e.g., China, South Africa and
Thailand) in the past decade. In South Africa in particular, shelf-stable
meals such as beef curry, beef stroganoff, lasagna and sausages were
produced by the South African Atomic Energy Commission and sold
during the 1990s. These products were particularly useful for outdoor
activities such as camping, hiking, safaris, and mountaineering. In
Thailand, “Nham”—a traditional fermented pork sausage usually con-
sumed raw—is often contaminated by pathogenic bacteria such as
Salmonella or by parasites such as Trichinella spiralis. Nham has been
irradiated for pathogen control and marketed widely in Bangkok since
1986. Irradiation not only ensures hygienic quality, but also extends the
shelf-life of such products when they are marketed at non-refrigerated
temperatures. In addition, research data have demonstrated that irradia-
tion could be used not only to ensure microbiological safety, but also to
extend the shelf-life of chilled, prepared meals, which are gaining popu-
larity among consumers in western countries. When the petition for irra-
diation of ready-to-eat food is approved by the FDA, food manufactur-
ers will be able to use this technology to enhance the safety and quality
of a variety of chilled as well as frozen, prepared meals.

Future Trends
Irradiation will increase the availability of many types of fresh
fruits, vegetables and specialized food products. As consumers come to
appreciate some of these thus far unavailable products, it is reasonable
to expect that the market for them will continue to grow.

C O NS UMER AC C E PTANCE OF IRRAD I ATED FO OD S

Results of Market Trials
Initially, food producers were concerned that consumers would be
unwilling to accept irradiated foods; this was partly because some
activist groups spread inaccurate and distorted statements about irradia-
tion. However, when market trials of irradiated food products were car-
ried out in many countries (e.g., Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, China,
France, India, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, the Philippines,
South Africa, Thailand and the U.S.), consumers were not only willing
to buy irradiated foods but often preferred them over food treated by
conventional means, once they were given truthful information about
irradiation and its purpose. For example, market trials of irradiated vs.

35
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
hot-water-treated papaya from Hawaii were conducted in California in
1987. Consumers chose irradiated papaya over hot-water-treated papaya
at a ratio of 13:1. A 1991 trial in Shanghai, China, showed that more
than 90% of consumers were willing to purchase irradiated apples again
once they realized the benefits of irradiation as opposed to chemical
treatment. In Bangkok, Thailand, market trials of irradiated fermented
pork conducted in 1986 showed that consumers purchased more irradi-
ated product compared to the non-treated version at a ratio of 16:1. In
Northbrook, Illinois, market trials of irradiated strawberries carried out
in 1992-93 showed that consumers purchased irradiated berries over
non-irradiated ones at a ratio ranging from 10 to 20:1, depending on the
time of year.
The results of such market trials have provided valuable informa-
tion for introducing irradiated foods on a commercial scale. Consumers
need factual and balanced information on the benefits of irradiation vs.
those offered by other processes in order to make informed decisions
about whether to buy irradiated foods. With proper information, con-
sumers are empowered to view irradiation in a positive light and even
prefer that some foods be irradiated to ensure their safety.
Endorsements of the safety and benefits of irradiation by respected
national and international health authorities also played an important
role in increasing the confidence
of consumers about irradiated
foods. Irradiation can increase the
The encouraging results of variety and quality of fruits
market trials have led to success- and vegetables available to
ful introduction of irradiated American consumers.
foods on a commercial scale in
several countries. Irradiated
foods are now available at the retail levels in several countries includ-
ing Belgium, China, France, Japan, South Africa, Thailand and the
United States.

Availability of Irradiated Foods in the United States

Among the first irradiated foods entering the American market were
strawberries, onions and mushrooms that were treated in the first com-
mercial food irradiator (Vindicator Co., Mulberry, Florida, later called
Food Technology Service, Inc.) in 1992. A small grocer in Northbrook,
Illinois—Carrot Top—pioneered the marketing of irradiated food in the
United States in early 1992 to test consumer acceptance. The results
were beyond expectation, as consumers who were provided with accurate

36
Table 2. A m e r i can Stores and Fo od Cha i ns
S e l ling Irrad i ated Fo ods in Som e
Lo cati o ns.
Supermarket Chain Started Selling Irradiated Food

Carrot Top (Northbrook, IL) February 1992

Supervalu stores (Eden Prairie, MN) May 2000
Rainbow Foods (Minneapolis, MN) May 2000
Cub Foods (Stillwater, MN) May 2000
Nash Finch (Minneapolis, MN) July 2000
Clemens (Philadelphia, PA) June 2000
W.W. Johnson (Minneapolis, MN) May 2001
Winn-Dixie (Jacksonville, FL) November 2001
Wegman’s (Rochester, NY) May 2002
Kroger (Cincinnati, OH) June 2002
Lowes Food (Winston-Salem, NC) September 2002
D’Agostino (Westchester, NY) September 2002
Pathmark (NY, NJ, Philadelphia) October 2002
Price Chopper (Schenectady, NY) October 2002
Hy-Vee (West Des Moines, IO) October 2002
Farm Fresh (Hampton Roads, VA) October 2002
Giant Food (Landover, MD) November 2002
Jewel Osco (Boise, ID) November 2002
Dominick (Pleasanton, CA) November 2002
Pick ’n Save (Neemah, WI) November 2002
Hannaford Bros. (Scarborough, ME) November 2002
Stop ’n Save (Quincy, MA) November 2002
Publix (Lakeland, FL) January 2003
Tops Markets (Amherst, NY) January 2003
Giant Eagle, Inc. (Pittsburgh, PA) January 2003
Schnuck Markets (St. Louis, MO) January 2003
Safeway Eastern Division (Lanham, MD) January 2003
Diersbergs Markets (St. Louis, MO) January 2003
Weis Supermarket (Sunbury, PA) February 2003

37
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
information preferred the irradiated products to their non-irradiated
counterparts, which were available at the same store.
The early success of marketing irradiated food (fruits, vegetables
and chicken) by the Carrot Top grocery has provided reassurance and
an incentive to supermarket chains to follow suit. After the approval of
irradiated red meats by the FDA in 1999 and USDA in 2000, irradiated
ground beef has been successfully marketed in several states. Increasing
numbers of supermarket chains and retail stores have introduced irradi-
ated food, clearly labeled as such, at some or all of their stores as indi-
cated in Table 2.
As of March, 2003, over 7,000 supermarkets and retail stores
offered irradiated foods, mainly ground beef and Hawaiian fruits, in
most states. Sales of such foods have been strong, and the majority of
consumers are not reluctant to buy them. Several other supermarket
chains plan to start offering irradiated foods to their customers in the
near future.
Schwan, Inc., a nationwide food service company operating through
home delivery, started marketing irradiated ground beef produced by
Huisken Meat, Inc., in late 2000. The success in selling irradiated
ground beef has led this company to market only irradiated ground beef
since early 2002. Sysco Foodservice also started marketing irradiated
ground beef at its distribution centers in 2002, followed by Associated
Wholesale Incorporated and Performance Food Group, Inc., in January
2003.
Dairy Queen, a nationwide fast-food restaurant chain based in
Edina, MN, began offering irradiated hamburgers at some of its stores
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area in early 2002. At the store, consumers
are provided information about the irradiated ground beef through
posters, trays, and napkins. Sale of irradiated hamburgers has increased
steadily and Dairy Queen decided to offer irradiated hamburgers in all
of its Minnesota stores on a voluntary basis in late 2002. It is possible
that Dairy Queen will market irradiated hamburgers in its stores in
other states in the future. Other restaurant chains including Shells,
based in Florida, Champp, based in Milwaukee, and Embers American,
based in Minnesota, are now offering some irradiated foods to their
customers.

ISSUES AFFECTING TRADE IN IRRAD I ATED FO OD S

Will Irradiation Increase the Cost of Food?
Any additional processing will add cost to the food. It will also
“add value” to the treated food. Food processes such as canning, freez-

38
ing, refrigeration, pasteurization, fumigation and irradiation all add cost
to the product but will benefit consumers in terms of safety, quality,
quantity, availability and convenience. These represent the “added
value” of the food. The cost of low dose irradiation of food, e.g., for
sprout or insect control, is on the order of $20-$50 per metric ton or
about 1-2 cents per pound, while medium dose irradiation for pathogen
control of meat products should add about 10-15 cents per pound, and
20-30 cents per pound for relatively high dose irradiation to ensure
hygienic quality of spices and dried vegetable seasonings. In general,
the cost of irradiation is competitive if not lower than that of other food
processes that achieve the same purposes. For example, the cost of irra-
diation to meet quarantine requirements in the USA is approximately
10-20% of that of vapor heat treatment. Either one can be used to treat
papaya to meet quarantine requirements.

What about Labeling?

Most national authorities that approve the use of food irradiation
require that food so treated be clearly labeled, and often require that the
international food irradiation logo (the Radura—See Appendix V) also
be on the label. Information from market trials indicates that consumers
prefer that irradiated foods be labeled as such, as irradiated foods are less
likely to serve as vehicles of food-borne pathogens. Labeling offers the
opportunity to inform consumers of the reason why foods are or should
be irradiated, as well as
giving them a choice.
The FDA is one of the ACSH supports informational—
authorities that requires not warning—labeling require-
that irradiated whole foods ments for irradiated food as
be labeled as such. In 1986 approved by the FDA.
a mandatory green
“Radura” logo was added
to this labeling requirement. Labeling requirements could hamper the
commercialization of some applications of irradiation even if consumers
are willing to buy foods labeled “irradiated.” In many cases irradiation
will be competing with techniques that do not need to be declared on
the label: heat processing, freezing and fumigation. There is no negative
health-related reason why irradiated foods must be labeled. There is no
known population subgroup that needs to avoid these foods on health
grounds. On the other hand, labeling irradiated foods provides the
opportunity to inform consumers not only that the food has undergone
irradiation treatment, but also that the food is therefore a safer and bet-

39
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
ter quality product. It also provides educational information for con-
sumers. Experience with retail sale of irradiated foods indicates that
informed consumers are willing to buy irradiated foods, even at a high-
er cost. In addition, comments submitted to the FDA suggest that many
people want to know when foods have been irradiated. This desire to
know is also a strong argument in favor of labeling for informational—
not warning—purposes.
FDA officials have stated that the purpose of any label should be
informative only. The FDA and USDA have allowed truthful statements
such as “irradiated for safety” and “irradiated to greatly reduce harmful
bacteria” on irradiated food packages. With the recently passed U.S.
Farm Bill, it is likely that labeling of irradiated food could be more lib-
eral, and a statement such as “cold pasteurization” may be permitted
instead of irradiation in the future. Labeling is currently not required in
restaurants or other food service milieus.

Are Irradiated Foods Being Traded Internationally?

Some irradiated food such as spices, herbs and dried vegetable sea-
sonings, and food ingredients such as mechanically deboned poultry
meat, have entered international markets for use by the food processing
industry. Many types of irradiated spices and seasonings in processed
food also have entered international commerce. Other irradiated foods
are mainly used in domestic markets to meet local food demands.
With the recent approval by APHIS of irradiation for imported
fruits and vegetables, international trade in irradiated food is likely to
increase significantly in the near future. Irradiation will also likely be
used to meet strict hygienic standards for several food products that
enter international trade.

Are There Scientific Methods to Determine Whether Foods Have

Been Irradiated?
Yes. Scientific research carried out in the past two decades has
resulted in several methods that can be used to determine whether foods
have been irradiated or not. Unfortunately, there is no single method
that works for all foods. The Codex Alimentarius Commission endorses
the following five methods for analyzing irradiated foods:
• Irradiated food containing fat—gas chromotagraphic (GC) analysis
of hydrocarbons
• Irradiated food containing fat—GC/mass spectrometric analysis of
cyclobutanones
• Irradiated food containing bone—electron spin resonance spec-
troscopy

40
• Irradiated food containing cellulose—electron spin resonance spec-
troscopy
• Irradiated food from which silicate materials can be isolated—ther-
moluminescence analysis.

C O N C LU S I O NS
The safety and effectiveness of irradiation as a food process have
been clearly established, and this food technology is increasingly
accepted by regulatory authorities all over the world. Irradiation pro-
vides an added layer of safety to many food products including meat,
poultry, seafood and spices that are susceptible to contamination by
pathogenic microorganisms. It can ensure their microbiological safety at
the market place and prevent consumers from bringing contaminated
products into their homes. Faced with liability from selling contaminat-
ed products, the food industry will have to weigh the cost of using irra-
diation against the cost of product recalls, lawsuits, loss of brand equity
or even bankruptcy as a result of illnesses and deaths caused by such
contaminated products. Irradiation may provide a cheaper and more
effective option for the food industry to ensure the safety of its prod-
ucts. Recent trends indicate that irradiation is likely to play the same
role for solid foods as heat pasteurization has played for liquid foods.
Consumers now have the option of purchasing either irradiated foods
without such contamination or non-irradiated products that may be con-
taminated by various pathogenic organisms.
The unique characteristics of irradiation as an effective sanitary and
phytosanitary treatment for food and agricultural commodities will cre-
ate a strong demand for its use by the food industry. It will provide U.S.
consumers with a wide choice of fresh fruits and vegetables from over-
seas, especially those from tropical countries that have limited access to
the U.S. market because of strict quarantine regulations. It will enhance
the export of fruits and vegetables from the USA to its trading partners.
Thus, irradiation will likely expand trade in many types of food prod-
ucts on a global basis.
The ultimate success of any food technology or product is in the
marketplace. It is the consumer who will decide whether to buy irradiat-
ed foods or to buy food processed by other methods. While the intro-
duction of irradiated foods into the U.S. market has been slow, this
trend is likely to accelerate because of increasing consumer acceptance
of and demand for improved safety and quality characteristics.
Irradiation is therefore providing consumers in the U.S. and some other
countries with another choice for safety-enhanced foods.

41
 I r rad i ated Fo od s

S u g g e sti o ns for Fu rther Read i n g

Acceptance, Control of and Trade in Irradiated Foods, Proceeding of an
international conference convened by FAO, IAEA, WHO and
ITC/UNCTAD/GATT, Geneva, Switzerland, December 1988.
IAEA, 1989.
Bruhn CM, Wood OB. Position of the American Dietetic Association:
Food irradiation. J ADA. 1996;96(1):69-72.
Chi H, Shiping G, et al. A feeding trial of irradiated diet in human vol-
unteers. F.A.O./I.A.E.A. Seminar for Asia and the Pacific on
Practical Applications of Food Irradiation. Shanghai, China, 1986.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Foodborne
Pathogens: Risks and Consequences. Comments from CAST.
Ames, IA, 1994.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Ionizing
Energy in Food Processing and Pest Control: I. Wholesomeness of
food treated with ionizing energy. Ames, IA, 1986.
Diehl, F. The Safety of Food Irradiation. New York: Marcel Dekker,
1995.
Food and Drug Administration. Irradiation in the production, processing
and handling of food. Federal Register. Apr. 18, 1986;51(75).
Food Irradiation: A Global Food Safety Tool. International Consultative
Group on Food Irradiation and International Food Information
Council, 2002, at http://www.ific.org.
Food Irradiation: A Technique for Preserving and Improving the Safety
of Food. WHO, 1988.
GAO. Food Irradiation: Available Research Indicates that Benefits
Outweigh Risks. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/RCED-
00-217). Washington, D.C.: GAO, August 2000.
Henkel, J. Irradiation: a safe measure for safer food. FDA Consumer.
May-June 1998.
International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI). Facts
about Food Irradiation (1999), Consumer Attitudes and Market
Response to Irradiated Foods (1999), Safety of Poultry Meat from
Farm to Table (1999), at http://www.iaea.org/icg
Loaharanu P. Irradiation—a viable phytosanitary treatment.
Americafruit, Dec. 2002/Jan. 2003.
Loaharanu P. Status and prospects of food irradiation. Food Technology.
1994;48;124.
Loaharanu P, Thomas P, eds. Irradiation to Ensure the Safety and
Quality of Foods, Proceedings of an international conference organ-
ized by FAO, IAEA and WHO, Antalya, Turkey, October 1999.
Lancaster, Basel: Technomic Publishing Company, 2001

42
Molins R, ed. Food Irradiation: Principles and Applications. New
York: Wiley Interscience, 2001.
Monk JD, Beuchat LR, Doyle MP. Irradiation inactivation of food-borne
microorganisms. J Food Protection. 1995;58:197.
Mucklow R, Cross H. Modern Meat Safety: A Technological Toolbox.
Food Safety. June/July 2002.
Murano EA, ed. Food Irradiation, a Sourcebook. Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press, 1995.
Pauli GH, Takeguchi CA. Irradiation of foods, an FDA perspective.
Food Reviews Inter. Vol.2, No. 1, 79-107, 1986.
Osterholm MT, Potter ME. Irradiation Pasteurization of Solid Foods:
Taking Food Safety to the Next Level. Emerging Infectious
Diseases. Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct./Nov. 1997), http://www.cdc.gov/nci-
dod/eid/vol3no4/osterhol.htm
Radiation Preservation of Foods. Chicago IL: Institute of Food
Technologists, 1983. [Available as a pamphlet for $1.00 from the
Institute of Food Technologists, 525 W. Van Buren St., Ste. 1000,
Chicago, IL 60607-3814, USA. This article was also published in
Food Technology. 1983;37(2):55.]
Radomysk TE, Murano EA, Olson DG, Murano PS. Elimination of
pathogens of significance in food by low-dose irradiation: A review.
J Food Protection. 1994;57:73.
Satin, M. Food Irradiation: A Guidebook. Lancaster, PA: Technomic
Publishing Co, 1993.
Tauxe R. Food safety and irradiation: protecting the public from food-
borne infection. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2001; 7(3) supple-
ment:516-521.
Thayer DW. Wholesomeness of irradiated foods. Food Technology.
1994;48:124.
Thayer DW, Christopher JP, Campbell LA, et al. Toxicology studies of
irradiation—sterilized chicken. Journal of Food Protection.
1987;50:278.
Urbain WM. Food Irradiation. New York: Academic Press, 1986.
USDA Issues Final Rule on Meat and Poultry Irradiation. USDA/FSIS
Backgrounder, December 1999. (http://www.usda.gov/news/releas-
es/1999/12/0486BG.html)
Wilkinson VM, Gould GW. Food Irradiation: A Reference Guide.
Butterworth Heinemann, 1996.
WHO. High-Dose Irradiation: Wholesomeness of Foods Irradiated with
Doses above 10 kGy, Report of a Joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Study
Group. WHO Technical Report Series 890. Geneva, 1999.
WHO. Safety and Nutritional Adequacy of Irradiated Foods. WHO, 1994.

43
 I r rad i ated Fo od s

Appendix I. S ome Te rms Freq u e n tly Used in

D i s c u s s i o ns of Fo od Irrad i ati o n *
Gamma rays: Electromagnetic radiation of very short wavelength,
similar to high-energy X-rays. Gamma rays are emitted by radioac-
tive isotopes of cobalt-60 and cesium-137 as these isotopes sponta-
neously disintegrate.
High-energy electrons: Streams or beams of electrons accelerated by a
machine to energies of up to 10 million electron volts (MeV).
Electrons are also emitted by some radioactive materials; in this
case they are called “beta rays.”
Kilogray (kGy); Gray (Gy): A Gray (Gy) is the unit (or level) of ion-
izing energy absorbed by food during irradiation. One Gy is equiva-
lent to energy of 1 joule absorbed by one kilogram of matter, e.g.,
food; 1000 Gy = 1 kilogray (kGy). (An older unit of absorbed radi-
ation dose is the rad. One Gy = 100 rad.)
Phytosanitary treatment: Any treatment designed to protect plant
health by preventing the introduction and/or spread of pests, or to
ensure their official control.
Radiation pasteurization: Treatment of food with doses of radiation
large enough to kill or render harmless all disease-causing organ-
isms except viruses and spores of spore-forming bacteria. Processed
foods usually must be stored under refrigeration.
Radiation sterilization: Treatment of food with doses of radiation
large enough to kill or render harmless all disease-causing and
spoilage organisms. The resulting processed food can be stored at
room temperature in the same way as thermally sterilized (canned)
foods—that is, packaged to prevent recontamination.
Radura: A symbol or logo developed in the Netherlands and recog-
nized internationally by the World Health Organization and the
International Consulting Group on Food Irradiation as the official
symbol that indicates a product has been subjected to irradiation.
X-rays: Ionizing electromagnetic radiation of a wide variety of short
wavelengths. They are usually produced by a machine in which a
beam of fast electrons in a high vacuum bombards a metallic target
and is converted to X-rays.
* Adapted from Radiation Preservation of Foods, Institute of Food Technologists,
Chicago, 1983.

44
Appendix II. Fo od Irrad i ation: Some Major
M i le sto n e s
1895: Wilhelm Konrad von Roentgen, German physicist, discovers X-
rays.
1896: Antoine Henri Becquerel, French physicist, discovers emission of
radiation from naturally occurring radioactive materials. Minsch
publishes proposal to use ionizing radiation to preserve food by
destroying spoilage microorganisms.
1904: Prescott publishes studies at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) on the bactericidal effects of ionizing radiation.
1905: U.S. and British patents issued for the use of ionizing radiation to
kill bacteria in foods.
1905–1920: Significant basic research is conducted on the physical,
chemical and biological effects of ionizing radiation.
1921: USDA researcher Schwartz publishes studies on the lethal effect
of X-rays on Trichinella spiralis in raw pork.
1923: First published results of animal feeding studies to evaluate the
wholesomeness of irradiated foods.
1930: French patent issued for the use of ionizing radiation to preserve
foods.
1943: MIT group, under U.S. Army contract, demonstrates the feasibili-
ty of preserving ground beef by use of X-rays.
Late 1940s and early 1950s: Beginning of era of food irradiation devel-
opment by U.S. Government, Atomic Energy Commission, industry,
universities and private institutions, including long-term animal
feeding studies by the U.S. Army and by Swift and Company (an
American meat processing company).
1950: Beginning of food irradiation program by Great Britain and
numerous other countries.
1958: The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act is amended, directing that food
irradiation be evaluated as a food additive, not as a physical
process. All new food additives, including irradiation, must be
approved by FDA before they can be used. The U.S. Congress pass-

45
 I r rad i ated Fo od s
es legislation to this effect, which President Eisenhower signs in
1958. This legislation is still the law of the land.
1973: The first successful commercial potato irradiator started operating
at Shihoro Agricultural Co-operative, Hokkaido, Japan. The irradia-
tor continues to operate even today.
1976: The Joint Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated
Foods (JECFI), convened by Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), declares that food
irradiation is a physical process comparable to heating and freezing
preservation of food.
1980: The JECFI concluded that irradiation of any food commodity up
to an overall average dose of 10 kGy causes no toxicological haz-
ard; hence, toxicological testing of food so treated is no longer
required. The JECFI also stated that irradiation of food up to an
overall average dose of 10 kGy introduces no special microbiologi-
cal and nutritional problems in food.
1983: Codex Alimentarius Commission of the FAO/WHO Food
Standards Program, representing 130 countries, adopts worldwide
standards for the application of irradiation to foods with doses up to
an overall average of 10 kGy.
1984: An International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI)
was established under the aegis of FAO, IAEA and WHO to evalu-
ate global developments on food irradiation and provide a focal
point of advice to the three UN bodies and their member govern-
ments.

1988: FAO, IAEA, WHO and ITC/UNCTAD/GATT convened an inter-

national conference, which adopted an agreement on provisions to
accept, control and trade irradiated foods on a global scale.
1992: The first commercial food irradiator in the USA (Vindicator, Inc.,
Mulberry, Florida) starts operation and offers service to the food
industry. A small grocer based in Northbrook, Illinois, pioneered
sale of irradiated food at the retail level.
1995: Irradiation commercially applied in the United States to preserve
poultry, strawberries, tomatoes, mushrooms, onions and citrus prod-
ucts, and to kill insects and parasites in herbs and spices.

46
 1997: A Joint Study Group on High-Dose Irradiation of Food was con-
vened by FAO, IAEA and WHO to evaluate wholesomeness data of
food treated above 10 kGy. The Group concluded that irradiation of
food at any dose, either below or above 10 kGy, causes no toxico-
logical hazards and is nutritionally adequate. No upper dose limit
need be imposed on food irradiation as a food process.
2000: The first commercial electron beam machines of Surebeam, Inc.,
for food irradiation starts operation in Sioux City, Iowa, to provide
service to the food industry. Irradiated ground beef produced by
Huisken Meat, Inc. of Minnesota starts entering the market. Sale of
irradiated ground beef expands rapidly.
2000: The first commercial X-ray machine for food irradiation (pro-
duced by Surebeam, Inc.) starts operating in Hilo, Hawaii, for treat-
ing fruits to meet quarantine requirements for export to the U.S.
mainland.
2002: Many supermarket chains start offering irradiated foods, mainly
ground beef and fresh fruits from Hawaii, in some 4,000 stores in
most states of the USA. A fast-food restaurant chain, Dairy Queen,
starts offering irradiated hamburgers at their stores in Minnesota.
Several restaurant chains start offering irradiated ground beef on
their menus.

Appendix III. Rad u ra: inte r nati o nal symbol for

i r rad i ati o n.

47
 I r rad i ated Fo od s

Appendix IV. Fo od Irrad i ation: Major Reg u l ator y

Appr o vals in North America
Year Canada Mexico USA

1960 Potatoes (sprout

inhibition, 0.15
kGy max.)

1963 Wheat & wheat prod-

ucts (insect disinfesta-
tion, 0.5 kGy max.)

1964 Potatoes (sprout inhibi-

tion, 0.15 max.)

1965 Onions (sprout

inhibition, 0.15
kGy max.)

1969 Wheat and wheat

products (insect
control, 0.75 kGy
max.)

1983 Spices and dried veg-

etable seasonings
(microbial control, up
to a max dose of 10
kGy)

1984 Spices and dried

vegetable season-
ings (microbial
control, 10 kGy
max.)

1985 Dry and dehydrated

enzyme preparations
(microbial control, 10
kGy max.)

48
Appendix IV. Fo od Irrad i ation: Major Reg u l ator y
Appr o vals in North America (continued)
Year Canada Mexico USA

1985 Pork (trichinosis con-

trol, 1 kGy max.)

1986 Fresh foods for insect

control and delay of
physiological growth, 1
kGy max.)

1990 Spices and dried veg-

etable seasonings (max.
dose 30 kGy)

1995 Roots, tubers, fruits, Fresh and frozen poul-

vegetables, meat, try (pathogen control, 3
fish, spices, season- kGy max.)
ings, grains, legumes
(for various purposes
and difference max.
doses)

1997 Raw and frozen red

meat (pathogen control,
7 kGy max.)

2000 Fresh shell eggs

(Salmonella control, 3
kGy max.)

2000 Seeds for sprouting

(pathogen control, 8
kGy max.)

49
 I r rad i ated Fo od s

Appendix V. D i a grams of Irrad i ation fac i li ti e s

Typical Cobalt-60 Irradiation Layout

Typical Electron Beam Irradiator

50
 AC SH E X E CU TI VE S TA F F

Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.

President

AC SH B OA R D OF DI R E CTORS

John H. Moore, Ph.D., M.B.A. Thomas R. DeGregori, Ph.D. Mark C. Taylor, M.D.
Chairman of the Board, ACSH University of Houston Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
Grove City College
Henry I. Miller, M.D. Lorraine Thelian
Elissa P. Benedek, M.D. Hoover Institution Ketchum Public Relations
University of Michigan
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Kimberly M. Thompson, Sc.D.
Norman E. Borlaug, Ph.D. Institute for Regulatory Science Harvard School of Public Health
Texas A&M University
Albert G. Nickel Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
Michael B. Bracken, Ph.D., M.P.H. Lyons lavey Nickel swift, inc. American Council on Science and Health
Yale University School of Medicine
Kenneth M. Prager, M.D. Robert J. White, M.D., Ph.D.
Christine M. Bruhn, Ph.D. Columbia College of Physicians and Case Western Reserve University
University of California Surgeons
Taiwo K. Danmola, C.P.A. Stephen S. Sternberg, M.D.
Ernst & Young Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

A CS H B OAR D OF S CI E NT IF I C AN D POL I CY ADVISORS

Ernest L. Abel, Ph.D. George M. Burditt, J.D. Nancy Cotugna, Dr.Ph., R.D., C.D.N. George E. Ehrlich, M.D., Robert S. Gable, Ed.D., Ph.D., J.D.
C.S. Mott Center Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC University of Delaware F.A.C.P., M.A.C.R., FRCP (Edin) Claremont Graduate University
Philadelphia, PA
Julie A. Albrecht, Ph.D. Edward E. Burns, Ph.D. Roger A. Coulombe, Jr., Ph.D. Shayne C. Gad, Ph.D.,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln Texas A&M University Utah State University Michael P. Elston, M.D., M.S. D.A.B.T., A.T.S.
Rapid City Regional Hospital Gad Consulting Services
James E. Alcock, Ph.D. Francis F. Busta, Ph.D. H. Russell Cross, Ph.D.
Glendon College, York University University of Minnesota Future Beef Operations, L.L.C. William N. Elwood, Ph.D. William G. Gaines, Jr., M.D., M.P.H.
University of Miami School of Scott & White Clinic
Thomas S. Allems, M.D., M.P.H. Elwood F. Caldwell, Ph.D., M.B.A. Charles R. Curtis, Ph.D. Medicine
San Francisco, CA University of Minnesota Ohio State University Charles O. Gallina, Ph.D.
James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H. Professional Nuclear Associates
Richard G. Allison, Ph.D. Zerle L. Carpenter, Ph.D. Ilene R. Danse, M.D. University of California, Los Angeles
American Society for Nutritional Texas A&M University System Bolinas, CA Raymond Gambino, M.D.
Sciences (FASEB) Stephen K. Epstein, M.D., Quest Diagnostics, Inc.
C. Jelleff Carr, Ph.D. Ernst M. Davis, Ph.D. M.P.P., FACEP
John B. Allred, Ph.D. Columbia, MD University of Texas, Houston Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Randy R. Gaugler, Ph.D.
Ohio State University Rutgers University
Robert G. Cassens, Ph.D. Harry G. Day, Sc.D. Myron E. Essex, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Philip R. Alper, M.D. University of Wisconsin, Madison Indiana University Harvard School of Public Health LaNelle E. Geddes, Ph.D., R.N.
University of California, San Francisco Purdue University
Ercole L. Cavalieri, D.Sc. Robert M. Devlin, Ph.D. Terry D. Etherton, Ph.D.
Karl E. Anderson, M.D. University of Nebraska Medical University of Massachusetts Pennsylvania State University J. Bernard L. Gee, M.D.
University of Texas, Medical Branch Center Yale University School of Medicine
Seymour Diamond, M.D. William Evans, Ph.D.
Dennis T. Avery Russell N. A. Cecil, M.D., Ph.D. Diamond Headache Clinic University of Alabama K. H. Ginzel, M.D.
Hudson Institute Mohawk Valley Orthopedics, NY University of Arkansas for
Donald C. Dickson, M.S.E.E. Daniel F. Farkas, Ph.D., M.S., P.E. Medical Sciences
Robert S. Baratz, D.D.S., James J. Cerda, M.D. Gilbert, AZ Oregon State University
Ph.D., M.D. University of Florida William Paul Glezen, M.D.
International Medical John Diebold Richard S. Fawcett, Ph.D. Baylor College of Medicine
Consultation Services Morris E. Chafetz, M.D. The Diebold Institute for Public Huxley, IA
Health Education Foundation Policy Studies Jay A. Gold, M.D., J.D., M.P.H.
Nigel M. Bark, M.D. John B. Fenger, M.D. Medical College of Wisconsin
Albert Einstein College of Medicine Bruce M. Chassy, Ph.D. Ralph Dittman, M.D., M.P.H. Phoenix, AZ
University of Illinois, Urbana- Houston, TX Roger E. Gold, Ph.D.
Stephen Barrett, M.D. Champaign Owen R. Fennema, Ph.D. Texas A&M University
Allentown, PA John E. Dodes, D.D.S. University of Wisconsin, Madison
Dale J. Chodos, M.D. National Council Against Health Fraud Reneé M. Goodrich, Ph.D.
Thomas G. Baumgartner, Kalamazoo, MI Frederick L. Ferris, III, M.D. University of Florida
Pharm.D., M.Ed. Sir Richard Doll, M.D., D.Sc., National Eye Institute
University of Florida Martha A. Churchill, Esq. D.M. Frederick K. Goodwin, M.D.
Milan, MI University of Oxford David N. Ferro, Ph.D. The George Washington
Barry L. Beyerstein, Ph.D. University of Massachusetts University Medical Center
Simon Fraser University Emil William Chynn, M.D. John Doull, M.D., Ph.D.
Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital University of Kansas Madelon L. Finkel, Ph.D. Timothy N. Gorski, M.D.,
Blaine L. Blad, Ph.D. Cornell University Medical College F.A.C.O.G.
Kanosh, UT Dean O. Cliver, Ph.D. Theron W. Downes, Ph.D. Arlington, TX
University of California, Davis Michigan State University Jack C. Fisher, M.D.
Hinrich L. Bohn, Ph.D. University of California, San Diego Ronald E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Arizona F. M. Clydesdale, Ph.D. Adam Drewnowski, Ph.D. International Center for
University of Massachusetts University of Washington Kenneth D. Fisher, Ph.D. Toxicology and Medicine
Ben Bolch, Ph.D. Washington, DC
Rhodes College Donald G. Cochran, Ph.D. Michael A. Dubick, Ph.D. Michael Gough, Ph.D.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research Leonard T. Flynn, Ph.D., M.B.A. Bethedsa, MD
Joseph F. Borzelleca, Ph.D. State University Morganville, NJ
Medical College of Virginia Greg Dubord, M.D., M.P.H. Henry G. Grabowski, Ph.D.
W. Ronnie Coffman, Ph.D. RAM Institute William H. Foege, M.D., M.P.H. Duke University
Michael K. Botts, Esq. Cornell University Emory University
Zarley Law Firm, P.L.C. Edward R. Duffie, Jr., M.D. James Ian Gray, Ph.D.
Bernard L. Cohen, D.Sc. Savannah, GA Ralph W. Fogleman, D.V.M. Michigan State University
George A. Bray, M.D. University of Pittsburgh Upper Black Eddy, PA
Pennington Biomedical Research David F. Duncan, Dr.Ph. William W. Greaves, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Center John J. Cohrssen, Esq. Brown University Christopher H. Foreman, Jr., Ph.D. Medical College of Wisconsin
Public Health Policy Advisory Board University of Maryland
Ronald W. Brecher, Ph.D., C.Chem., James R. Dunn, Ph.D. Kenneth Green, D.Env.
Neville Colman, M.D., Ph.D. Averill Park, NY E. M. Foster, Ph.D. Reason Public Policy Institute
DABT St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital University of Wisconsin, Madison
GlobalTox International Consultants, Inc. Robert L. DuPont, M.D.
Center Laura C. Green, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. F. J. Francis, Ph.D. Cambridge Environmental, Inc.
Robert L. Brent, M.D., Ph.D. University of Massachusetts
Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children Gerald F. Combs, Jr., Ph.D.
Cornell University Henry A. Dymsza, Ph.D. Saul Green, Ph.D.
University of Rhode Island Glenn W. Froning, Ph.D. Zol Consultants
Allan Brett, M.D. University of Nebraska, Lincoln
University of South Carolina Michael D. Corbett, Ph.D.
Omaha, NE Michael W. Easley, D.D.S., M.P.H. Richard A. Greenberg, Ph.D.
State University of New York, Buffalo Vincent A. Fulginiti, M.D. Hinsdale, IL
Gale A. Buchanan, Ph.D. University of Colorado
University of Georgia Morton Corn, Ph.D.
John Hopkins University J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D. Sander Greenland, Dr.P.H., M.S., M.A.
San José State University Arthur Furst, Ph.D., Sc.D. UCLA School of Public Health
University of San Francisco
 A CS H
Gordon W. Gribble, Ph.D.
Dartmouth College
William Grierson, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Lester Grinspoon, M.D.
Harvard Medical School
F. Peter Guengerich, Ph.D.
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Caryl J. Guth, M.D.
Hillsborough, CA
Philip S. Guzelian, M.D.
University of Colorado
Alfred E. Harper, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Clare M. Hasler, Ph.D.
University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
Robert D. Havener, M.P.A.
Sacramento, CA
Virgil W. Hays, Ph.D.
University of Kentucky
Cheryl G. Healton, Dr.PH.
Columbia University, School of
Public Health
Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D.
American Cancer Society
Dwight B. Heath, Ph.D.
Brown University
Robert Heimer, Ph.D.
Yale School of Public Health
Zane R. Helsel, Ph.D.
Rutgers University, Cook College
Donald A. Henderson, M.D., M.P.H.
Johns Hopkins University
James D. Herbert, Ph.D.
MCP Hahnemann University
Gene M. Heyman, Ph.D.
McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical
School
Richard M. Hoar, Ph.D.
Williamstown, MA
Robert M. Hollingworth, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Edward S. Horton, M.D.
Joslin Diabetes Center
Joseph H. Hotchkiss, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Steve E. Hrudey, Ph.D.
University of Alberta
Susanne L. Huttner, Ph.D.
University of California, Berkeley
Robert H. Imrie, D.V.M.
Seattle, WA
Lucien R. Jacobs, M.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Alejandro R. Jadad, M.D.,
D.Phil., F.R.C.P.C.
University of Toronto
Rudolph J. Jaeger, Ph.D.
Environmental Medicine, Inc.
William T. Jarvis, Ph.D.
Loma Linda University
Daland R. Juberg, Ph.D.
Dow Agroscience, LLC.
Michael Kamrin, Ph.D.
Haslett, MI
John B. Kaneene,Ph.D.,
M.P.H., D.V.M.
Michigan State University
Philip G. Keeney, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
John G. Keller, Ph.D.
Olney, MD
Kathryn E. Kelly, Dr.P.H.
Delta Toxicology
George R. Kerr, M.D.
University of Texas, Houston
George A. Keyworth II, Ph.D.
Progress and Freedom Foundation
The opinions expressed in ACSH publications do not necessarily represent the views of all ACSH Directors and Advisors.
B OAR D OF
Michael Kirsch, M.D.
Highland Heights, OH
John C. Kirschman, Ph.D.
Emmaus, PA
Ronald E. Kleinman, M.D.
Massachusetts General Hospital
David M. Klurfeld, Ph.D.
Wayne State University
Kathryn M. Kolasa, Ph.D., R.D.
East Carolina University
Alan R. Kristal, Dr.P.H.
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center
David Kritchevsky, Ph.D.
The Wistar Institute
Mitzi R. Krockover, M.D.
Humana, Inc.
Manfred Kroger, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Laurence J. Kulp, Ph.D.
University of Washington
Sandford F. Kuvin, M.D.
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Carolyn J. Lackey, Ph.D., R.D.
North Carolina State University
J. Clayburn LaForce, Ph.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
James C. Lamb, IV, Ph.D., J.D.
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
Lawrence E. Lamb, M.D.
San Antonio, TX
Lillian Langseth, Dr.P.H.
Lyda Associates, Inc.
Brian A. Larkins, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Larry Laudan, Ph.D.
National Autonomous University
of Mexico
Tom B. Leamon, Ph.D.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D.
Environmental Education Enterprises, Inc.
Brian C. Lentle, M.D., FRCPC, DMRD
University of British Columbia
Floy Lilley, J.D.
Amelia Island, Fl
Paul J. Lioy, Ph.D.
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson
Medical School
William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H.
Fort Lee, NJ
Frank C. Lu, M.D., BCFE
Miami, FL
William M. Lunch, Ph.D.
Oregon State University
Daryl Lund, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin
George D. Lundberg, M.D.
Medscape
Howard D. Maccabee, Ph.D., M.D.
Radiation Oncology Center
Janet E. Macheledt, M.D., M.S.,
M.P.H.
Houston, TX
Roger P. Maickel, Ph.D.
Purdue University
Henry G. Manne, J.S.D.
George Mason University Law School
Karl Maramorosch, Ph.D.
Rutgers University, Cook College
Judith A. Marlett, Ph.D., R.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
James R. Marshall, Ph.D.
Arizona Cancer Center
Margaret N. Maxey, Ph.D.
University of Texas at Austin
Mary H. McGrath, M.D., M.P.H.
Loyola University Medical Center
ACSH Directors and Advisors serve without compensation.
S C IE N TIF I C A ND
Alan G. McHughen, D.Phil.
University of California, Riverside
James D. McKean, D.V.M., J.D.
Iowa State University
John J. McKetta, Ph.D.
University of Texas at Austin
Donald J. McNamara, Ph.D.
Egg Nutrition Center
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D.
University of Virginia
Thomas H. Milby, M.D., M.P.H.
Walnut Creek, CA
Joseph M. Miller, M.D., M.P.H.
University of New Hampshire
William J. Miller, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
Dade W. Moeller, Ph.D.
Harvard University
Grace P. Monaco, J.D.
Medical Care Management Corp.
Brian E. Mondell, M.D.
John Hopkins at Green Spring Station
Eric W. Mood, LL.D., M.P.H.
Yale University School of Medicine
John W. Morgan, Dr.P.H.
California Cancer Registr y
W. K. C. Morgan, M.D.
Ontario, Canada
Stephen J. Moss, D.D.S., M.S.
New York University
Ian C. Munro, F.A.T.S., Ph.D.,
FRCPath
Cantox Health Sciences International
Kevin B. Murphy
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Harris M. Nagler, M.D.
Beth Israel Medical Center
Daniel J. Ncayiyana, M.D.
University of Cape Town
Philip E. Nelson, Ph.D.
Purdue University
Malden C. Nesheim, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Joyce A. Nettleton, D.Sc., R.D.
Aurora, CO
John S. Neuberger, Dr.P.H.
University of Kansas School of Medicine
Gordon W. Newell, Ph.D.,
M.S.,F.-A.T.S.
Palo Alto, CA
Steven P. Novella, M.D.
Yale University School of Medicine
James L. Oblinger, Ph.D.
North Carolina State University
John Patrick O’Grady, M.D.
Tufts University School of Medicine
James E. Oldfield, Ph.D.
Oregon State University
Stanley T. Omaye, Ph.D., F.-
A.T.S., F.ACN, C.N.S.
University of Nevada, Reno
Michael T. Osterholm, Ph.D., M.P.H.
ican, Inc.
M. Alice Ottoboni, Ph.D.
Sparks, NV
Michael W. Pariza, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Stuart Patton, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Timothy Dukes Phillips, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Mary Frances Picciano, Ph.D.
National Institutes of Health
David R. Pike, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Thomas T. Poleman, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Charles Polk, Ph.D.
University of Rhode Island
PO LI CY ADVISORS
Charles Poole, M.P.H., Sc.D
University of North Carolina
School of Public Health
Gary P. Posner, M.D.
Tampa, FL
John J. Powers, Ph.D.
University of Georgia
William D. Powrie, Ph.D.
University of British Columbia
Kary D. Presten
U.S. Trust Company of New York
Marvin P. Pritts, Ph.D.
Cornell University
Daniel J. Raiten, Ph.D.
National Institutes of Health
David W. Ramey, D.V.M.
Ramey Equine
R.T. Ravenholt, M.D., M.P.H.
Population Health Imperatives
Russel J. Reiter, Ph.D.
University of Texas, San Antonio
William O. Robertson, M.D.
University of Washington School
of Medicine
J. D. Robinson, M.D.
Georgetown University School of
Medicine
Bill D. Roebuck, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Dartmouth Medical School
David B. Roll, Ph.D.
University of Utah
Dale R. Romsos, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Steven T. Rosen, M.D.
Northwestern University Medical School
Kenneth J. Rothman, Dr.P.H.
Editor, Epidemiology
Stanley Rothman, Ph.D.
Smith College
Edward C. A. Runge, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Stephen H. Safe, D.Phil.
Texas A&M University
Wallace I. Sampson, M.D.
Stanford University School of Medicine
Harold H. Sandstead, M.D.
University of Texas Medical Branch
Herbert P. Sarett, Ph.D.
Sarasota, FL
Lowell D. Satterlee, Ph.D.
Vergas, MN
Marvin J. Schissel, D.D.S.
Roslyn Heights, NY
Lawrence J. Schneiderman, M.D.
University of California, San Diego
Edgar J. Schoen, M.D.
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
David Schottenfeld, M.D., M.Sc.
University of Michigan
Joel M. Schwartz, M.S.
Reason Public Policy Institute
Patrick J. Shea, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Michael B. Shermer, Ph.D.
Skeptic Magazine
Sidney Shindell, M.D., LL.B.
Medical College of Wisconsin
Sarah Short, Ph.D., Ed.D., R.D.
Syracuse University
A. J. Siedler, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Lee M. Silver, Ph.D.
Princeton University
Michael S. Simon, M.D., M.P.H.
Barbara Ann Kamonos Cancer Inst.
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D.
Elkins Park, PA
Gary C. Smith, Ph.D.
Colorado State University
Roy F. Spalding, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Leonard T. Sperry, M.D., Ph.D.
Barry University
Robert A. Squire, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Baltimore, MD
Ronald T. Stanko, M.D.
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
James H. Steele, D.V.M., M.P.H.
University of Texas, Houston
Robert D. Steele, Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University
Judith S. Stern, Sc.D., R.D.
University of California, Davis
Martha Barnes Stone, Ph.D.
Colorado State University
Michael M. Sveda, Ph.D.
Gaithersburg, MD
Glenn Swogger, Jr., M.D.
Menninger Clinic
Sita R. Tatini, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota
Steve L. Taylor, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Dimitrios Trichopoulos, M.D.
Harvard School of Public Health
Murray M. Tuckerman, Ph.D.
Winchendon, MA
Robert P. Upchurch, Ph.D.
University of Arizona
Mark J. Utell, M.D.
University of Rochester Medical Center
Shashi B. Verma, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Willard J. Visek, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Illinois College of Medicine
Donald M. Watkin, M.D.,
M.P.H., F.A.C.P.
George Washington University
Miles Weinberger, M.D.
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
Janet S. Weiss, M.D.
University of California at San Francisco
Steven D. Wexner, M.D.
Cleveland Clinic Florida
Joel Elliot White, M.D., F.A.C.R.
John Muir Comprehensive Cancer
Center
Carol Whitlock, Ph.D., R.D.
Rochester Institute of Technology
Christopher F. Wilkinson, Ph.D.
Burke, VA
Mark L. Willenbring, M.D.
Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Carl K. Winter, Ph.D.
University of California, Davis
Lloyd D. Witter, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign
James J. Worman, Ph.D.
Rochester Institute of Technology
Russell S. Worrall, O.D.
University of California, Berkeley
Panayiotis M. Zavos, Ph.D.,
Ed.S.
University of Kentucky
Steven H. Zeisel, M.D., Ph.D.
The University of North Carolina
Ekhard E. Ziegler, M.D.
University of Iowa